On being a “natural-born citizen”

Posted on by bf62183703

Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run for president? (Updated) | PolitiFact.

When I listened to the Republication Presidential debates last week, I became aware that Ted Cruz was born in Canada not in the United States. I was taken “back a little” by this fact because of the uproar people caused trying to prove that then candidate Obama was not eligible to run for President. This time the potential candidate openly admits he was not born in the United States but born in Canada. The fact of Ted Cruz’s birth was not raised as an issue during the debate by anyone. I was also surprised by that. So I decided to do a little rummaging on the ‘net and found the above Tampa Bay Times Politifact article.

Anyway, by virtue of the fact that Senators McCain and Goldwater as well as George Romney also were not “geographically” born in the United States and this fact was an issue in their presidential eligibility, I offer an article published by the Tampa Bay Times. Steve Contorno does a really nice job of dissecting  how difficult the definition of the meaning of “natural-born citizen” is. It probably would be a job for the Supreme Court of the United States to determine a definitive definition.

So just what does it mean to be a “natural-born citizen” here in the United States in the year 2015?”

6 thoughts on “On being a “natural-born citizen””

  1. it’s interesting how it’s not an issue when it’s a white man… I didn’t need his birth status to know I wouldn’t be voting for him, but that was an interesting article

    Like

    1. I have been reflecting on this “issue” ever since the debate and then finding the Tampa Bay article. I am now thinking about all the “anchor babies” born to illegal immigrants now living in the US. If “natural-born” citizen means that the new-born baby automatically takes on the citizenship of the birth-mother, then all the “anchor” babies would be citizens of birth-mother’s country not the country in which the the baby is born.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. IIRC there’s legislation being written or discussed to address that specifically. I know the UK changed their laws to state that babies born must have one parent already a citizen to be considered a citizen. Since we’re gearing up for an election and Latinos are a substantial block of voters it will be interesting to see if it comes up.

        Like

      2. Yes, I am thinking that also. The idea is the “intent” of the law. It’s too bad we can’t look into the mind of our Founding Fathers for what they meant by “natural-born” citizens. The law is open to interpretation. This can be a “good” or a “bad” thing. Depends upon your personal point of view obviously. I’m thinking this debate is like the “right to bear arms” debate. Does that mean military can form and own arms only or that every citizen can own arms? We, the people, have been arguing “strenuously” about that Right for decades already.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to bf62183703 Cancel reply