I heard on the news today that Ted Cruz is going to announce that he's running for president. I'm confused on how he is able to do that since he was born in Calgary, Canada. Last I checked Calgary is not in the United States. I thought that in order to be president you had to be born on US soil. Can someone please explain this to me.
Quote from: US 41 on March 22, 2015, 08:34:43 PM
I heard on the news today that Ted Cruz is going to announce that he's running for president. I'm confused on how he is able to do that since he was born in Calgary, Canada. Last I checked Calgary is not in the United States. I thought that in order to be president you had to be born on US soil. Can someone please explain this to me.
"Natural born citizens" can be President. This means a person must have been a citizen at the time of birth. It is possible in a few very limited circumstances for a person born on foreign soil to be a natural born citizen.
Ted Cruz didn't meet the criteria though.
Cruz's Mom was an American citizen at the time of Ted's birth. America grants citizenship at birth to children of American citizens that are born abroad, so he's a natural-born American citizen.
But yes, it's never been taken to court to settle for sure whether or not that makes one eligible to be President. I'd expect that if by some anti-miracle Ted Cruz won the presidency said court case would arise quite quickly.
Quote from: corco on March 22, 2015, 08:43:51 PM
Cruz's Mom was an American citizen at the time of Ted's birth. America grants citizenship at birth to children of American citizens that are born abroad, so he's a natural-born American citizen.
But yes, it's never been taken to court to settle for sure whether or not that makes one eligible to be President. I'd expect that if by some anti-miracle Ted Cruz won the presidency said court case would arise quite quickly.
And be dismissed quite quickly, too. The Federal courts have a lot of experience with blowing off "birther" suits (basically, holding that nobody or almost nobody has the legal right or "standing" to bring suit over the issue), without ever ruling on the merits.
For those with the perverse desire to follow batshit crazees, it will be interesting how the old "birther" crowd reacts. At least one of them has already said Marco Rubio isn't eligible, so at least give them a little credit for consistency.
American citizens' uteri are American soil.
Ted Cruz is as much a US Citizen as Barack Obama is. That is all I will say.
How about John McCain, his birth place is no longer a US territory. It's now a panamanian base.
Ted Cruz is a natural-born US citizen, but he is a dual national because of his birth in Canada, which also means his claim to US citizenship is not double-locked (i.e., it depends solely on his mother's nationality, not--as in Obama's case--being born to a US citizen mother on US soil).
The Canadian birth will dog Cruz politically though. Because he has access to a Canadian as well as a US passport, it is perfectly rational for his opponents to claim that he is not as fully invested in the US as someone who is a citizen of the US and no other country. It is for the purpose of refuting these doubts that he has made a huge show of renouncing his Canadian citizenship.
However, the Canadians almost certainly won't confirm that he has renounced Canadian citizenship, for most of the same reasons the Hawaii vital-statistics unit would not release Obama's full birth certificate. Therefore, we can expect people to be hounding Cruz to supply documentary proof that he has actually done what the law in Canada requires to renounce citizenship in that country. It is tempting to say that sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, but birtherism is tedious--regardless of the target--and very polluting to political discourse. This is one of several reasons (though not the principal one) I hope Cruz' candidacy will be very short-lived.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 22, 2015, 09:24:11 PMHow about John McCain, his birth place is no longer a US territory. It's now a panamanian base.
His parents were both US citizens. I don't think anyone born in the Panama Canal Zone could claim US citizenship without at least one US citizen parent. In any case, the real issue with McCain is that he apparently could not produce a birth certificate. He would have great trouble just registering to vote in a state like Kansas where citizenship proof is now required by law.
You need to look at Section 201(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, 1138—39. Cruz's mother was (is? I don't know whether she's alive today) a US citizen who had resided in the US for ten years before he was born, and at least five of those years came after she turned 16.
The Canal Zone was a U.S. territory when McCain was born. So I don't think there's any doubt at all McCain was a natural born citizen.
Quote from: bandit957 on March 22, 2015, 09:46:36 PM
The Canal Zone was a U.S. territory when McCain was born. So I don't think there's any doubt at all McCain was a natural born citizen.
Section 203 of the statute I cited earlier addresses the Canal Zone. Both of his parents were US citizens. The statute states he is therefore a natural-born citizen.
BTW, the Canal Zone was an unincorporated territory. Without the statute, under Supreme Court precedent McCain would have been a US national, not a US citizen.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 22, 2015, 09:35:25 PM
You need to look at Section 201(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, 1138—39.
"Birthers" will tell you that a crummy statute isn't enough. I think it is, but then I'm a real dove on "natural born citizen" (basically, that clause is there to prevent a foreign power from foisting a ruler on us, like later happened with Mexico's Emperor Maximilian until his ouster and execution).
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 22, 2015, 09:28:47 PM
He would have great trouble just registering to vote in a state like Kansas where citizenship proof is now required by law.
His U.S. passport (either personal, or official through holding U.S. government office) presumably would do for that purpose, as would naturalization papers if he had to get citizenship that way. For some people, a passport or naturalization certificate is their *only* proof of U.S. citizenship.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 22, 2015, 09:50:56 PMSection 203 of the statute I cited earlier addresses the Canal Zone. Both of his parents were US citizens. The statute states he is therefore a citizen.
Now codified at 8 USC § 1403 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403). I think the main difference between this and the other section, now codified at 8 USC § 1401 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401), is to supply a carve-out from the requirements for prior US residency that would otherwise apply.
Eight of the first nine presidents were born British. If you feel persnicketty, you can argue that Van Buren was our first legitimate president.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 22, 2015, 10:10:00 PM
Eight of the first nine presidents were born British. If you feel persnicketty, you can argue that Van Buren was our first legitimate president.
The Constitution has a grandfather clause, which exempted them (as "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution") from the "natural born citizen" requirement.
Quote from: oscar on March 22, 2015, 09:59:57 PMHis U.S. passport (either personal, or official through holding U.S. government office) presumably would do for that purpose, as would naturalization papers if he had to get citizenship that way. For some people, a passport or naturalization certificate is their *only* proof of U.S. citizenship.
He would have to use a passport to get around the lack of a birth certificate.
There was a well-publicized case a few months ago involving a woman born at home in Minnesota whose birth was not officially recorded. She was clearly a US citizen, and had been registered to vote in Missouri nearly all of her adult life, but when she moved to Kansas, she was not able to register to vote because she did not have a birth certificate. In the end the State Objections Board (which in Kansas has the responsibility of handling "hard luck" cases such as this and has become notorious as a forum for birtherism) accepted the family Bible, in which her birth had been recorded, as proof of citizenship, and only on the basis that this would be used to grant her a US passport if she had applied for one. It was widely joked that she had had to promise to vote Republican for the rest of her life (all three members of the Board are Republican officeholders).
One reason I hate birtherism in general is that if you set out to find defects in the documentation chain that supports a claim to US citizenship, you will assuredly find them, even if they are completely trivial, and they can in turn be used to attack the validity of the citizenship claim. If my grandmother had run for President today, I am sure a big stink would have been made of the fact that her birth certificate said February 28, 1919 when the actual date of birth was February 27, 1919. Obama had much cleaner birth documentation than she did, and look what happened when he tried to shut down the birthers for good by releasing his long-form birth certificate.
The sections 1995hoo has quoted afford endless fodder for birtherism in the case of people born abroad, because of the requirement for the US citizen parent to have been actually resident in the US during certain timeframes. The original purpose of these was to prevent indefinite expatriatism (i.e., being a US citizen on the basis that a fourth grandfather or some other remote ancestor was a US citizen, none of the intervening ancestors having actually even seen the US), but they can now be used as vehicles for attacking a foreign-born child's claim to US citizenship, because the standard of proof for residency is ambiguous and people tend to live their lives without thinking about how to prove they are residents of such and such a political entity.
Quote from: oscar on March 22, 2015, 10:14:50 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 22, 2015, 10:10:00 PM
Eight of the first nine presidents were born British. If you feel persnicketty, you can argue that Van Buren was our first legitimate president.
The Constitution has a grandfather clause, which exempted them from the "natural born citizen" requirement.
I said you could argue, not that you'd be right.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 22, 2015, 10:10:00 PMEight of the first nine presidents were born British. If you feel persnicketty, you can argue that Van Buren was our first legitimate president.
Just to add to Oscar's comment: the clause dealing with people actually resident in the US at the founding of the country would have allowed Alexander Hamilton to run for President despite his being born in the Virgin Islands, contrary to what thousands of high-school US History teachers tell their pupils each year. (His electability was of course a different issue altogether.)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 22, 2015, 10:10:00 PM
Eight of the first nine presidents were born British. If you feel persnicketty, you can argue that Van Buren was our first legitimate president.
Nice try, but the Constitution gets around that by providing that a person who was a US citizen at the time of the Constitution's adoption was eligible.
Quote from: oscar on March 22, 2015, 09:59:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 22, 2015, 09:35:25 PM
You need to look at Section 201(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, 1138—39.
"Birthers" will tell you that a crummy statute isn't enough. I think it is, but then I'm a real dove on "natural born citizen" (basically, that clause is there to prevent a foreign power from foisting a ruler on us, like later happened with Mexico's Emperor Maximilian until his ouster and execution).
....
Just as well they have no say in the matter. The Constitution doesn't define the expression. One could look to the common law instead of to statutes, but it doesn't matter because the courts would almost invariably consider it a "political question" (meaning they won't decide it)–if they get that far at all, because they'd almost certainly dismiss it on standing grounds. There was a federal district court case in 2010 in the District of Columbia where a woman sought a writ of quo warranto disqualifying Obama. The court dismissed the case on standing grounds; one amusing aspect of the holding noted that the petitioner had to be qualified to be elected president to have standing to seek that particular writ, and in that particular case it was undisputed that the petitioner was a naturalized citizen herself!
I remember about 20 years ago, I started hearing a lot about U.S. families going to maternity wards right across the border in Canada or Mexico for their children to be born, because the U.S. health care system was so bad. I had wondered how it would affect the child's citizenship. If both parents were citizens, I guess it wouldn't be a problem, but what if both parents weren't citizens? In that case, I assume the child wouldn't be a citizen, even if they actually resided in the U.S. from the time of birth.
Saw somewhere upthread that someone said that because Cruz' mother was a citizen, he'd be a citizen even if he was born outside the United States. The same would be applicable, from what I've read, if his father was a citizen and his mother was not. I know some religions base the child's status on the mother's status, but I understand that to not be the case where citizenship is concerned.
I hope it is settled that he is eligible to run. He's certainly my choice among all the candidates, announced or not.
Ted Cruz will be bashed on the party primary level over his Birth Certificate.
Isn't this nearly the same situation that George Romney faced in 1968 (albeit with two native US-born parents vs. one)? I think the commonly held position is that he would have been eligible.
Guys once 2016 is at play Ted Cruz will be bashed on other hypocrisy charges by his opponents once the debates come into play. It's not just the birth certificate issue where one hypocrisy charge came out.
Quote from: bandit957 on March 22, 2015, 11:07:58 PM
I remember about 20 years ago, I started hearing a lot about U.S. families going to maternity wards right across the border in Canada or Mexico for their children to be born, because the U.S. health care system was so bad. I had wondered how it would affect the child's citizenship. If both parents were citizens, I guess it wouldn't be a problem, but what if both parents weren't citizens? In that case, I assume the child wouldn't be a citizen, even if they actually resided in the U.S. from the time of birth.
The US requires just one US citizen parent (meeting the residency requirements at 8 USC § 1401) for the child to be a US citizen. Both Canada and the US permit dual nationality, so the child goes back to the US as a US/Canadian dual citizen. Mexico does not allow dual nationality (per the Constitution of 1917), so--AIUI--birth in Mexico will give the child a claim to Mexican nationality which, under Mexican law, he can assume only if he or she relinquishes US citizenship.
Quote from: briantroutman on March 22, 2015, 11:43:14 PMIsn't this nearly the same situation that George Romney faced in 1968 (albeit with two native US-born parents vs. one)? I think the commonly held position is that he would have been eligible.
Yes, it is. Romney was a white upper-class car company CEO and Michigan governor (for which I suspect there is also a citizenship qualification) in the consensus age, so he never had to deal with the whole birther miasma. Barry Goldwater was another Presidential candidate, this time the actual nominee of a major party, with a less redundantly locked-down claim on natural-born US citizenship since he was born in Arizona before statehood. His eligibility was never seriously challenged.
Just as a friendly reminder, politics is not a topic that this board is designed to discuss. Discussion on the theory and quirks of immigration and citizenship law, like this thread has mostly stuck to, is okay, but let's avoid letting the discussion turn to Mr. Cruz and his political opinions, since he can be a very polarizing character.
Thanx Scott, remember the 3 things NEVER to discuss in the public, including message boards (unless where permitted): Politics, religion and which we enjoy starts with a "s"...SPORTS (gotcha!)
Ted Cruz may qualify to run for president due to possession of dual nationality from his American-born mother if she still an US citizen in Canada. Not the first person in this controversy of nationality (George Romney, Mitt's father born in Mexico)...and sorry to remind you all: Arnold Schwarzenegger, body-builder and actor and CA governor (2003-2011) born in Austria can't run for US president, due to constitutional requirements.
Quote from: Mike D boy on March 23, 2015, 02:47:44 AM
Thanx Scott, remember the 3 things NEVER to discuss in the public, including message boards (unless where permitted): Politics, religion and which we enjoy starts with a "s"...SPORTS (gotcha!)
Which is why I never go into that filthy, filthy sports board.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 22, 2015, 11:15:15 PM
Saw somewhere upthread that someone said that because Cruz' mother was a citizen, he'd be a citizen even if he was born outside the United States. The same would be applicable, from what I've read, if his father was a citizen and his mother was not. I know some religions base the child's status on the mother's status, but I understand that to not be the case where citizenship is concerned.
....
This is correct. The reason I cited his mother is not because the mother is the significant determinant (along the lines of how Jews contend that someone with a Jewish mother is Jewish), but rather because Cruz's father is/was Cuban and so there was no reason to mention him.
Setting aside questions of politics, it makes a lot of sense that someone with a US citizen parent should not lose eligibility for US citizenship due to the mere happenstance of having been born abroad, especially in modern times given the ease of, and frequency of, travel. I'm sure some people might argue that the reason for travel might matter–say, an ambassador's wife gives birth in a foreign hospital, so you argue the ambassador was sent there by the government and it wouldn't be fair for the government to deny the child citizenship when it otherwise would have been born in the USA. OK, if you use that argument, there should be no quibble with the John McCain situation since I believe his father was serving in the Armed Forces and he was posted in the Canal Zone. The problem with this analysis is that it opens the door to far too many sticky situations and potential discrimination–for example, should the same principle apply to the child of a member of the ambassador's staff who was not "sent" there by the government but who instead "chose" to work abroad? If not, why not? How about the child of a US citizen mother who didn't necessarily plan to go abroad but did so for emergency reasons, such as attending a parent's funeral on short notice, and then went into labor while there? Most people would argue it'd be unreasonable to demand the woman decide between missing her parent's funeral or ensuring her child is a US citizen.
I think Congress understandably isn't getting into the business of drawing these sorts of lines. I believe the Supreme Court also recognized that the mere happenstance of being born abroad to US citizen parents is not, without more, sufficient reason to deny status as a natural-born citizen.
Don't forget, the Constitution also requires that the natural-born citizen be at least 35 years old and have resided within the US for 14 years. This helps prevent the situation where, say, two US citizens living in Russia (hypothetically, Edward Snowden marries an American citizen and stays in Russia) have a kid but never return to the USA, the kid grows up abroad, and then the kid moves to the US as an adult and quickly runs for president despite never having been here. Even though the person may be a "natural-born citizen," he's ineligible to be president (or vice president) because he hasn't satisfied the residency requirement.
(Edited to make the first paragraph clearer as to what I meant.)
Quote from: Mike D boy on March 23, 2015, 02:47:44 AM
Thanx Scott, remember the 3 things NEVER to discuss in the public, including message boards (unless where permitted): Politics, religion and which we enjoy starts with a "s"...SPORTS (gotcha!)
I thought the third was the Great Pumpkin (per Linus Van Pelt). :sombrero:
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 23, 2015, 07:49:59 AMSetting aside questions of politics, it makes a lot of sense that someone with a US citizen parent should not lose eligibility for US citizenship due to the mere happenstance of having been born abroad, especially in modern times given the ease of, and frequency of, travel. I'm sure some people might argue that the reason for travel might matter–say, an ambassador's wife gives birth in a foreign hospital, so you argue the ambassador was sent there by the government and it wouldn't be fair for the government to deny the child citizenship when it otherwise would have been born in the USA. OK, if you use that argument, there should be no quibble with the John McCain situation since I believe his father was serving in the Armed Forces and he was posted in the Canal Zone. The problem with this analysis is that it opens the door to far too many sticky situations and potential discrimination–for example, should the same principle apply to the child of a member of the ambassador's staff who was not "sent" there by the government but who instead "chose" to work abroad? If not, why not? How about the child of a US citizen mother who didn't necessarily plan to go abroad but did so for emergency reasons, such as attending a parent's funeral on short notice, and then went into labor while there? Most people would argue it'd be unreasonable to demand the woman decide between missing her parent's funeral or ensuring her child is a US citizen.
Actually, the nationality law does provide for different treatment for certain special cases. For example, 8 USC § 1403 says that if you are a US citizen working for the US Government in the Panama Canal Zone or the Panama Railroad Company (or one of its successors) in the Republic of Panama, then your child is also a US citizen regardless of your prior US residency. I haven't dug into this in detail, but I suspect there are similar carve-outs for children of US diplomats who may have been born overseas and lived abroad continuously since, and thus otherwise be unable to transmit their US citizenship to their children (in which case said children, the diplomats' grandchildren, obtain US citizenship by
jus solis alone if and only if they are born in the US).
QuoteI think Congress understandably isn't getting into the business of drawing these sorts of lines.
Congress does draw such lines, especially in regard to treatment for certain favored groups such as veterans, who get preferential access to health care through the VA system, TriCare for Life, etc. Back in the 1960's there was an attempt to phase out veterans' benefits on the basis that military service should not be a required qualification for welfare-state entitlements. That failed, with the result that the military is sometimes compared to a Scandinavian-style social democracy in terms of provision of housing, education, and health care.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 23, 2015, 10:51:30 AM
Quote from: Mike D boy on March 23, 2015, 02:47:44 AM
Thanx Scott, remember the 3 things NEVER to discuss in the public, including message boards (unless where permitted): Politics, religion and which we enjoy starts with a "s"...SPORTS (gotcha!)
I thought the third was the Great Pumpkin (per Linus Van Pelt). :sombrero:
^ + 1,000
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/donald-trump-goes-birther-on-canadian-born-ted-cruz.
Here is an update Donald Trump is playing the birther card on Cruz.
Quote from: bing101 on March 24, 2015, 12:45:27 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/donald-trump-goes-birther-on-canadian-born-ted-cruz.
Here is an update Donald Trump is playing the birther card on Cruz.
Nice to know the birthers don't discriminate. :ded:
Quote from: bing101 on March 24, 2015, 12:45:27 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/donald-trump-goes-birther-on-canadian-born-ted-cruz.
Here is an update Donald Trump is playing the birther card on Cruz.
He thinks he originated the slogan "Make America Great Again"? In 1980 Ronald Reagan used the slogan "Let's Make America Great Again." Dropping the word "let's" doesn't make it original!
Quote from: Brandon on March 24, 2015, 06:27:23 AM
Quote from: bing101 on March 24, 2015, 12:45:27 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/donald-trump-goes-birther-on-canadian-born-ted-cruz.
Here is an update Donald Trump is playing the birther card on Cruz.
Nice to know the birthers don't discriminate. :ded:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t34.0-12/11081577_10205014929067978_867887360_n.jpg?oh=e69070af3df9d188d8259db108354b45&oe=551356FA&__gda__=1427334926_1c284dda7fdcbfac4e4bd2c96f836998)
Why is "white" capitalized in that graphic? It's not a proper noun.
Funny how so many candidates have this gray area now.
Hoping for a Cruz victory!
The State Department's website has detailed information on birth abroad. Pretty much if either parent is a citizen, you are a natural born citizen, no matter where you are born. There are forms to fill out and all of that. Not complex. My boss was born in Germany (military brat) but is a US citizen. He just got his passport and used a State Department issued thing called a "Consular Report of Birth Abroad". No issue.
Also remember that not every country considers you a citizen just because you are born there. My afformentioned boss is not a German citizen because German law excludes people born in Germany to non-Germans from being citizens.
Also remember that you don't necessarially want to be a citizen. The USA (alone in the world) taxes income of non-resident citizens. Lots of countries still have drafts. So on. I know an MD who is Syrian. His son was born here, but Syria considers any one born to a Syrian father to be a citizen and subject to the draft. And you CANNOT renounce that citizenship. Thus the son is technically a wanted draft dodger and cannot travel to any Arab countries.
It is also worth mentioning that the Supreme Court overturned the US law that disallowed dual citizenship in the 60s. Theoretically, a person can be a citizen of maybe a dozen countries at the same time, including the USA. In some cases whether he wants to or not.
As to the politicians mentioned:
Cruz. Born in Canada to US citizen mother. Natural born US citizen. Canada has birthright citizenship so he was also a Canadian citizen (which he renounced upon entering politics). Father was an escapee from Cuba. Cuban communist government considers all persons born to Cuban parents to be "citizens" (to whatever effect you can give such a word in a system that denies all human rights to all persons living there), and thus considers him a Cuban citizen, something Cruz rejects.
Romney. Born in Mexico to US citizen parents. Natural born US citizen. Mexico has birthright citizenship so he could have been a Mexican citizen, but Mexico does not allow dual citizenship (nor did the US in Romney's time) so he lost his claim to Mexican citizenship by claiming US citizenship.
Goldwater. Born in Arizona Territory. Natural born US citizen, because AZ was an incorporated territory.
McCain. Born in the Panama Canal Zone. Then an UNINCORPORATED leased territory. Natural born US citizen under two laws. First, born to two US citizen parents, and thus a natural born citizen no matter where born. Second, a specific law stated that anybody born in the CZ was a citizen. (The border between Panama and the CZ was open and lots of Panamanians got US citizenship by being born in the CZ, although US officials in that era were not helpful in doing the paperwork for them.) For example, Rod Carew, the baseball player, was born in the CZ and was a citizen from birth, although his parents were not.
Some other politicians of note:
Andrew Jackson. Many historians believe that Jackson was actually born to his Scots-Irish immigrant parents at sea on the way to the US and thus was not really a citizen and not eligiable to be president (any similarity of this to other presidents or candidates of other eras, including the current one, is unintentional.)
Alberto Fujimori. Ex-dictator of Peru. Born in Peru of Japanese parents (a good number of Japanese immigrated to South America after WWII, seeing no future in Japan). After his downfall, he moved to Japan, a place he had never even visited in his life, and was declared a citizen because Japan considers any person with even a Japanese grandparent a citizen at birth.
Swartzenegger (and former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm). Born in Austria and Canada respectievly. Neither can be president.
And one fictional character. Rick from Casablanca. The Bogart character was a citizen of no country at all. US law at the time said that any person who fought in a foreign war (he had fought with the communist side in the Spanish civil war) automatically lost their citizenship.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 24, 2015, 12:01:08 PM
And one fictional character. Rick from Casablanca. The Bogart character was a citizen of no country at all. US law at the time said that any person who fought in a foreign war (he had fought with the communist side in the Spanish civil war) automatically lost their citizenship.
Really? The entire Lincoln Brigade, about 2800 Americans, lost their citizenship?
Quote from: SP Cook on March 24, 2015, 12:01:08 PM
Some other politicians of note:
Andrew Jackson. Many historians believe that Jackson was actually born to his Scots-Irish immigrant parents at sea on the way to the US and thus was not really a citizen and not eligiable to be president (any similarity of this to other presidents or candidates of other eras, including the current one, is unintentional.)
Actually, Jackson would have been eligible regardless. He was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (having been born before) and was resident at least 14 years in the US.
Quote from: kkt on March 24, 2015, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 24, 2015, 12:01:08 PM
And one fictional character. Rick from Casablanca. The Bogart character was a citizen of no country at all. US law at the time said that any person who fought in a foreign war (he had fought with the communist side in the Spanish civil war) automatically lost their citizenship.
Really? The entire Lincoln Brigade, about 2800 Americans, lost their citizenship?
Is this the unexplained reason he can't go back to the States?
I've always been under the impression that one must have actually been born in the US to be eligible to run for president. I don't know if they changed it or what, but that is what I was taught in school.
Quote from: bugo on March 24, 2015, 03:22:02 PM
I've always been under the impression that one must have actually been born in the US to be eligible to run for president. I don't know if they changed it or what, but that is what I was taught in school.
Nothing has ever been changed. The Constitution has said the following (Article II, Section 1) since 1787:
QuoteNo person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Your teachers might have assumed "natural born Citizen" meant "born in the USA."
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 24, 2015, 03:03:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 24, 2015, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 24, 2015, 12:01:08 PM
And one fictional character. Rick from Casablanca. The Bogart character was a citizen of no country at all. US law at the time said that any person who fought in a foreign war (he had fought with the communist side in the Spanish civil war) automatically lost their citizenship.
Really? The entire Lincoln Brigade, about 2800 Americans, lost their citizenship?
Is this the unexplained reason he can't go back to the States?
No, he absconded with the church funds, ran away with a senator's wife, and killed a man.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 24, 2015, 09:30:21 AM
Why is "white" capitalized in that graphic? It's not a proper noun.
Not my graphic: I borrowed it from someone :p
Quote from: kkt on March 24, 2015, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 24, 2015, 03:03:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 24, 2015, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 24, 2015, 12:01:08 PM
And one fictional character. Rick from Casablanca. The Bogart character was a citizen of no country at all. US law at the time said that any person who fought in a foreign war (he had fought with the communist side in the Spanish civil war) automatically lost their citizenship.
Really? The entire Lincoln Brigade, about 2800 Americans, lost their citizenship?
Is this the unexplained reason he can't go back to the States?
No, he absconded with the church funds, ran away with a senator's wife, and killed a man.
Is that the romantic in you speaking?
Everything (yes, EVERYTHING) taught in school tends to be simplified, many cases in the extreme.
Quote from: bugo on March 24, 2015, 03:22:02 PMI've always been under the impression that one must have actually been born in the US to be eligible to run for president. I don't know if they changed it or what, but that is what I was taught in school.
You must have been taught that nonsense about Alexander Hamilton being ineligible to run for President, as I was.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 24, 2015, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 24, 2015, 03:22:02 PMI've always been under the impression that one must have actually been born in the US to be eligible to run for president. I don't know if they changed it or what, but that is what I was taught in school.
You must have been taught that nonsense about Alexander Hamilton being ineligible to run for President, as I was.
Hamilton was just as ineligible as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, and Jackson.
Quote from: Brandon on March 24, 2015, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 24, 2015, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 24, 2015, 03:22:02 PMI've always been under the impression that one must have actually been born in the US to be eligible to run for president. I don't know if they changed it or what, but that is what I was taught in school.
You must have been taught that nonsense about Alexander Hamilton being ineligible to run for President, as I was.
Hamilton was just as ineligible as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, and Jackson.
Also William Henry Harrison, who was the final president born prior to the Declaration of Independence (1773), and Martin Van Buren, who was born after the Declaration but prior to the Constitution (1782).
Edited to add: BTW, that made Van Buren a "natural-born citizen" because citizenship is reckoned back to 1776. Harrison was therefore the last president to qualify under the other provision about being a citizen when the Constitution was adopted.
Don't forget Chester Arthur. Ted Cruz could be our second Canadian president.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-original-birther-controversy/
I am shocked to find a topic about Ted Cruz not locked within five posts.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/donald-trump-wins-lawsuit-state-ethics-commission-article-1.2115290.
Donald Trumps recent Lawsuit.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/13/luxury/trump-palm-beach-lawsuit/
Donald Trump has a pattern of facing civil cases.
Ted Cruz won't win the nomination (anyone with half a brain won't vote for him), so all of this will be rendered moot
Regardless of the individual's politics, why in the 21st Century does it matter where they were extruded from a birth canal?
The intent of the Constitution was to avoid having some Briton move here and run for office while rallying support among people who still had sympathies for the Crown. It was a real possibility in the early years of America. But these days, that's only a threat for people with a loose grip on reality.
A person who has spent their entire adult life in a country shouldn't be banned from holding a political office just because they were potty trained someplace that doesn't have Walmarts.
They should be judged by their asinine ideas and not something as silly as where they were born.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 27, 2015, 08:25:50 PM
Regardless of the individual's politics, why in the 21st Century does it matter where they were extruded from a birth canal?
The intent of the Constitution was to avoid having some Briton move here and run for office while rallying support among people who still had sympathies for the Crown. It was a real possibility in the early years of America. But these days, that's only a threat for people with a loose grip on reality.
A person who has spent their entire adult life in a country shouldn't be banned from holding a political office just because they were potty trained someplace that doesn't have Walmarts.
They should be judged by their asinine ideas and not something as silly as where they were born.
So push for a constitutional amendment. That's been proposed, but IIRC California's Sen. Feinstein objected, apparently fearing it could help former Gov. Schwarzenegger, and the proposal stalled thereafter. His political ambitions having been derailed, and the most notable politician who would benefit (not counting Sen. Cruz, who doesn't really need the help and has bigger problems to worry about) is former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, maybe it's time to try again and end this nonsense one and for all.
Quote from: oscar on March 27, 2015, 08:57:00 PM
So push for a constitutional amendment. That's been proposed, but IIRC California's Sen. Feinstein objected, apparently fearing it could help former Gov. Schwarzenegger, and the proposal stalled thereafter. His political ambitions having been derailed, and the most notable politician who would benefit (not counting Sen. Cruz, who doesn't really need the help and has bigger problems to worry about) is former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, maybe it's time to try again and end this nonsense one and for all.
After what she did in Michigan, I'm in favor of keeping things as they are.
Snyder ruined Michigan.
And we're done here.