How is Ted Cruz eligible to run for President when he was not born in the US or on American soil?

There is no dispute about his citizenship. There was dispute over Obama being a citizen. I’m sure some will debate what “natural born” means and that could potentially be problematic for Cruz since while he was born a citizen it was immigration law that made it so.

It is funny, because the things that the right wing, furiously, claimed made Obama ineligible for president, namely not being born on colonial soil, and only one of his parents being a citizen at the time of his birth, suddenly do not matter when it comes to Cruz.

The same way my friend who was born on Okinawa is a citizen:

At least one of his parents was a natural born citizen, which makes him a natural born citizen.

This is really ninth grade social studies stuff.

I see it like this. If a person didn’t need to be naturalized then they are a natural born citizen. Ted Cruz did not need to do any naturalization paperwork as far as I know. His dad was American I think?

I think it’s ridiculous to require someone be born on American soil to be President. I would take it even further, but for this Q I’ll stick to just Cruz and being a natural born citizen.

I think Americans tend to get obsessed with the idea of being born on US soil, because we hear about it so much regarding immigration and anchor babies, and all that mess.

They really need to straighten out what natural born citizen means. This argument keeps happening too often. The US needs to add more detail to the requirements once and for all. I don’t know if that’s a Supreme Court thing or a congress thing to take care of it for the future.

Are some of the Republicans being hypocrites. Yes, in my opinion they are. The crazy birthers are an extreme, not to be confused with mainstream Republicans, but ask one of them who’s more qualified: Carlos born in Texas with illegal parents, or Cruz in Canada, and see what you get as an answer. Possibly, they will say both don’t, or they might be silent because they have no good answer.

Relevant

A quick rundown of all the ways to be a citizen.

@JLeslie Your statement If a person didn’t need to be naturalized then they are a natural born citizen. is at the crux of the question regarding Rafael Cruz. Should he have needed to be naturalized? He did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until mid 2014!

And, while I understand the theory of his being a US citizen by being the offspring of a US citizen, that is not settled law. Lawrence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard who taught both Cruz and President Barack Obama, questions Cruz’s eligibility.

Adding to the confusion, Cruz’s mother registered to vote when living in Canada, which some may consider a renunciation of her US Citizenship.

@zenvelo I agree it’s not settled law, which is why I think the US needs to define it better once and for all.

In my opinion (I didn’t study law or the constitution past 8th grade, except for getting a real estate license, so my opinion is simply as a citizen of America) in 2015 it doesn’t matter if you are eligible as a dual citizen. It does make sense to me a President, or even a Presidential candidate, would have to formerly renounce any other citizenships, but having been a dual citizen in the past does not disqualify someone in my opinion.

Back in the day America didn’t allow people to be dual citizens. Now, it’s quite commonplace.

My nephew was born in America, both parents green card, my nephew had an American passport and an Italian and the right to a Mexican one, I don’t think they bothered to get him that third one. I think he has let the Italian expire at this point, but he can always go and get another one. He was born and grew up here except for 4 years abroad from age 1–5. Is he not eligible? Yes, I think he is eligible, and because he was born on American soil he is eligible and his sister isn’t, even though she had the same parents and lived here from the age of 2 for the rest of her life. My SIL wanted to return here for the birth of her daughter, so both children had the same advantage, but her husband was against it and she complied. It’s just accident of birth, I don’t love that rule. The law surrounding eligibility is too vague and arbitrary in my opinion.

I thought Cruz’s father is American? Am I mistaken?

@zenvelo CORRECTION I just read the Wikipedia and it looks like I’m mistaken. Cruz’s mother was American, born in America. I think the Wikipedia is saying Cruz’s father didn’t become an American citizen until 2005? I’m not sure if that’s correct. Here is the link

So, Cruz’s mom does provide the American citizenship so Ted Cruz didn’t need to be naturalized I guess.

Why do you call him Rafael? For the same reason the Republicans always add the middle initial H to Obama’s name?

All it is is a campaign diversion tactic. The Dems did this masterfully when Harry Reid threw out a blatant lie when he said Romney didn’t file his taxes (he did) and Reid even crowed about how effective it was in derailing Romney’s momentum and planted that seed of doubt in voters minds even though is was completely untrue.

Turnabout is fair game in politics. If you don’t like it then blame the media for promoting these falsehoods.

@JLeslie I call him Rafael because that is his name. I’d be fine with calling him “Ted” if he wasn’t racist and anti-Latino.

@zenvelo I just feel calling him Rafael weakens your argument about his eligibility. Only because it seems so purposeful not to use the name he goes by. Just my opinion. It sounds like you hate him period. Do I think maybe Cruz purposely uses Ted to seem less Hispanic? I think that’s very possible.

I’ve said for a long time Cubans are completely different as a voting group when it comes to immigration policy. They feel comfortable in their advantage of having asylum and don’t see it as unfair. The rest of Latin America resents asylum for Cubans.

I will mention Rubio’s parents did not come in under asylum, so his nuclear family didn’t benefit from that.

I just think it’s hilarious that the “birther” issue is now affecting Republicans.

For years, Barak Obama’s detractors alleged that he was ineligible for the Presidency, even though he’d been born in Hawaii to a U.S. mother. This was the best Republicans could do to attack Obama, and it went on well past the point of absurdity.

How funny that Ted Cruz is grappling with the same matter. Except, in Cruz’s situation, the criticism may be valid.

@JLeslie Hate is a pretty strong word, but I have an avid dislike for him and his false religiosity and slimy politics and his antipathy towards women and his generally unctious attitude.

And yes, he uses “Ted” to hide his real name. If only birth certificate names were allowed on ballots, do you think he would have fared as well in Texas?

I never heard Cruz called Rafael but I think it’s funny! It’s not unlike Republicans calling Obama “Barry Hussein.”

@jca Thats my point. That to me feels like those people are just blinded by irrational hate.

@zenvelo I can’t stand Cruz either. I’ve said on Fluther before I’m not even sure of all of his positions on issues, because when he talks I can’t listen to him, I lose focus.

As far as fairing well in TX, there are a whole bunch of Hispanics in TX! It’s almost 40% I think?? His last name is still Cruz. Does he speak Spanish? Most people don’t learn their father’s language.

@ARE_you_kidding_me

There was no real dispute over Obama’s citizenship. Not by anyone living in reality.

@ragingloli

Obama was born on “colonial” (as you pretentiously insist on calling it) soil. He was born in Hawaii, which had entered into the Union by that point, and had been a US territory for decades before its statehood.

@Darth_Algar really

@Darth_Algar there certainly was but it was mostly baseless

@Aykm, it was all baseless, which is why he qualified the statement with “living in reality”, and ” real dispute”.

@Darth_Algar Yes. Hawaii received statehood during 1959. Barak Obama was born during 1961.

As far it not being settled law – there have been countless Americas who were born on foreign soil to American parents and are considered natural-born US citizens. I think there’s enough precedent there to consider it settled.

Whatever you want to call him America can keep him. Canada’s probably a better place without Cruz.
Thanks.

There is always a segment of the population that wants to believe in conspiracy theories. Arguments were made that McCain was also ineligible because he was born in Panama. Cruz is a natural born citizen whether any of us like it or not. Frankly I would have no problem if he was disqualified but he’s not. Kennedy was shot by Oswald, We really did land a man on the moon, there was never any issue with hanging chads in Florida, and that guy you saw in the 7-Eleven was not Elvis Presley. It’s not surprising that the guy that fueled the fires for Obama is the same guy fueling the fires for Cruz. Conspiracy theorists abound.

@Jaxk

Well said. I may not like Cruz, but he’s a natural-born US citizen for the same reason that McCain is a natural-born US citizen. For the same reason that Obama would be a natural-born US citizen even if he had been born in Kenya.

@Jaxk A conspiracy theory is always so much more compelling than the mundane truth.

Well to me, this will merely result into the same old argument if Cruz gets nominated only on the other foot. Normally Democrats do not nitpick over such inconsequential matters but for the majority of Obama’s tenure that’s exactly what the opposition had been doing so it will be in essence… Get back. Now whether the Dems will follow through or not will be decided during and possibly after the elections and in that case the only ones who will be negatively effected from it will be the American citizen, just as it had been in this past two elections. Do we really want to tolerate more foot dragging over minute details? We as the people which the constitution implies will have to stand up and be the ones who says, “No more!! Do your sworn duty of running the country and less of running your mouths”

@Jaxk… Oswald claimed he did NOT shoot Kennedy.. (he never denied shooting Tippit) was he lying? I don’t think so.. In the transcript the officials stated that the first shot missed (this was Oswald) then the other two snipers finished him off.. How can that be proven? It can’t because they only recovered the one pristine bullet .. The investigation was so bungled by professional standards that it simply had to be on purpose.. The detective who held up the found rifle with ungloved hands, the agent who cleaned out the presidential limo while Kennedy was being treated.. the bogus physic lesson concerning that final head shot and the refusal to allow eye witnesses to testify during the two faux judicial investigations and the outcome of the two, one declaring no conspiracy.. the other not discounting conspiracy.. There’s more but you can believe whom ever you choose to believe, however.. my parents we’re friends with three eye witnesses who were confused because they had never been subpoenaed at any time after their initial statements which contradicted much of what had been officially released.

Yeah, I simply cannot imagine why someone would deny murdering the President of the United States.

As I said, “There is always a segment of the population that wants to believe in conspiracy theories.”