Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rand Paul said over the weekend that regardless of the technicalities, the fact that a US president is born outside the US would be "extraordinary". Never happened before. May be that's why. In any event, Trumps attacks may be working. Today's Quinnipiac poll puts Trump ahead of Cruz in Iowa again. He'll end up next to Carson pretty soon.
Interesting. Did the US recognize dual citizenship before 1970?
In her application to become a British citizen did Mrs. Cruz swear allegiance to the queen (required?)? If so, isn't that sufficient for her to lose her American citizenship (I think it is)? And (if true) did she reapply for American citizenship before 1970? Probably not if she was allowed to vote in a Canadian election in 1974 as a British citizen.
Yes the US recognized dual citizenship before 1970, Elizabeth Taylor had it. When she married Richard Burton, she choose to denounce the US half. I don't know if Mrs. Cruz applied for British citizenship or not. It's just that I'm constantly doing genealogy and I found it odd that no one looked in England. British subjects eligible to vote prior to June 25 1968 kept their right to vote in Canada until 1975.
He is natural born as he wasn't ever naturalized. That is the difference. Besides, our Founding Fathers received their legalese from British law which used natural born to mean citizens born in the country or abroad. It's a no-brainer.
Yes the US recognized dual citizenship before 1970, Elizabeth Taylor had it. When she married Richard Burton, she choose to denounce the US half. I don't know if Mrs. Cruz applied for British citizenship or not. It's just that I'm constantly doing genealogy and I found it odd that no one looked in England. British subjects eligible to vote prior to June 25 1968 kept their right to vote in Canada until 1975.
Just reading a bit about the Cruz family, there sure are some very confusing facts re both Ted's mother and father. A lot of stuff has been obviously glossed over.
I can certainly see why Ted might be very reluctant to discuss these issues, produce relevant documents, etc but really he has no choice. If he refuses to do so he will be nailed, his career over. Likewise, if any discrepancies are found.
Well under your theory Trump isn't eligible either.His mother,[which should be equal to the father in THIS historical era],was born a British subject.He is the child of a British subject.
Wrong. Trump's FATHER would have to be British in order for US-born Trump to acquire British citizenship at birth. Even the British Nationality Act of 1948 still required citizenship to descend from the FATHER only for those born outside the UK or its territories.
Incidentally, that's why Obama was born a British citizen via his FATHER, as stated on Obama's own 'Fight the Smears' website.
It's important to know the actual nationality/citizenship laws of the parents involved in order to determine which citizenships are conferred automatically at birth. British citizenship didn't descend to a foreign-born child via a British mother until 1983.
He is natural born as he wasn't ever naturalized. That is the difference. Besides, our Founding Fathers received their legalese from British law which used natural born to mean citizens born in the country or abroad. It's a no-brainer.
It's straight forward.
Did we even have naturalization the way we have it today back when they wrote the Constitution? I suspect we are interpreting "naturalization" as understood today and "natural born" in a way that was not understood back then.
It's a neat irony: The most conservative constitutional interpreters must find Cruz ineligible to be president; liberals must grin and bear him. Cruz himself purports to embrace originalism as the correct view of the Constitution. To be faithful to his understanding of what the Constitution means, the senator may have to disqualify himself.
Did we even have naturalization the way we have it today back when they wrote the Constitution? I suspect we are interpreting "naturalization" as understood today and "natural born" in a way that was not understood back then.
It's also important to understand that 'born a citizen' is not the same as 'natural born citizen.' That was irrevocably established by the original Constitutional Convention...
The NBC clause as originally presented by Alexander Hamilton in June 1787:
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
The NBC clause as adopted in September 1787, and as it exists to this day in the Constitution:
"No 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"
Note the difference: 'born a citizen' does not equal 'natural born Citizen.'
The term was specifically changed after John Jay's July 1787 letter to George Washington to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or having foreign claims on their allegiance and service since birth from becoming President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
