Section 1, Article Two of the US Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
(Emphasis mine.)
Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Alberta, Canada. Cite.
So why aren’t all the “birthers” who wanted to run Pres. Obama out of town, hysterical about Ted Cruz too?
(BTW, I wondered if I was the first person to bring up this topic. And upon doing a search on “Ted Cruz” and “birthers”, I find apparently I am not [at least as this question relates to the “birther” crowd].)
There are those who feel he is ineligible to be President.
There are those who argue that the Constitution has already been thrown out, so what does it matter.
There are those who argue that if Democrats can do it (have an ineligible president), so can the Republicans.
And I think it’s fair to note that the birtherism didn’t arise immediately on the day that Obama announced he was running. I don’t think a single day of Cruz’s candidacy is an entirely fair representation of exactly who will have a problem with his candidacy.
But, it’s likely that he will not get the same pushback. The issues are not identical. He is of a different party. He is of a different race. Democrats almost certainly don’t have the heart to push it the same way.
It’s not that we don’t have the “heart”, it’s that it was a stupid issue when it was brought up against Obama, and it’s a stupid issue when it’s brought up against Cruz. Though, at least when it’s brought up against Cruz, it hattpens to be true that he wasn’t born in the US, unlike with Obama where it was just made up nonsense.
The silence from the birthers sure seems to indicate that there was something different about Obama that they considered foreign. I can’t quite seem to figure out what that difference is…
There’s already another thread about this and the reason that people aren’t freaking out about is because Cruz isn’t lying about about being born in the US like Obama is.
(Not my stance, just the reason CS’s aren’t flying off the handle about it, there’s nothing to prove or disprove)
Birthers wouldn’t be throwing a fit because he wasn’t born in the US, they’d be throwing a fit because he claimed to be born in Canada but they know he was really born in Cuba, the lying asshole.
ETA and as I said in the other thread, I’d be willing to bet there’d be about half as much outrage if Obama had a different middle name.
But there isn’t silence. There’s about as much chatter on Free Republic as there has been for the last couple of years re: Obama birtherism (which has been a mixed bag for a while. Lots of birthers but even more people pushing back against them, calling them stupid). It hasn’t been getting mainstream coverage in a long time.
Still an apples to oranges comparison because there is a legitimate discussion to be had around Cruz who was absolutely not born in the US, whereas there was no legitimate discussion to be had around Obama who was. The fact that there was any discussion at all around Obama had nothing to do with interpretation of the Constitution and everything to do with the color of his skin.
This is wrong imo. Obama birtherism was mostly about him being a Democrat. This is what happens in politics. Partisans and wingnuts usually make the most outrageous claims about their opponents. If Obama had the same name, same colour, but he espoused right wing policies then Obama birtherism from Republicans would have barely gotten off the ground* other than as infighting in the Republican Primaries, and as a Democrat wingnut issue.*
They already had to merge 2 Cruz threads but you had to make another? Sheesh. Anyways, Trump has indeed questioned Cruz’s birhright, as mentioned in the other thread.
Clearly by law, Cruz is a natural born US citizen. Under the law at the time of his birth, no matter where he was born he is a natural born US citizen because of his mother’s citizenship and her age. There’s no confusion on this issue, regardless of what some folks might claim.
In Obama’s case where he was born is a factor. Because of his mother’s age you can make the argument that if he was born outside of the US (which is pretty clearly false based on the evidence) he wouldn’t be a natural born US citizen.
So, while the two situations are superficially similar they differ on important points. As such, there’s no plausible argument against Cruz. There is a plausible (but already proven false by the evidence) argument against Obama.
IANAL but I’m pretty sure the mother’s age thing is a red herring.
My daughter was born in the UK to two American parents and thus had US citizenship from birth (as well as British citizenship). If she wants to pass on her US citizenship to her future children, she needs to go live in the US for at least five years after the age of 18 (otherwise you could have people retaining US citizenship who not only had never been to the US but whose parents and grandparents etc hadn’t either).
Obama’s mother was born in Kansas and grew up in the US. Therefore even if Obama had been born outside the US he still would be a US citizen…but he’d have had to have lived in the US for at least five years after turning 18 to pass his citizenship on to HIS kids.
I think you have those two reversed. If you’re born in the US, you’re a natural born citizen. That’s Obama’s case. His mother’s age is irrelevant. There’s no plausible argument there.
There is an issue for Cruz. Personally, I would agree with you, that “natural born” does not depend on being born in the US, and that seems to be the consensus, but even agencies like the Congressional Research Branch, which did an opinion on this issue, have said it’s not 100% certain that is the correct opinion, and there won’t be a definitive answer on the issue unless the courts somehow give a ruling.
Personally, I think the Senate should do the same thing for Cruz that they did for McCain in 2008: pass a bi-partisan resolution affirming that in the Senate’s opinion, he is a natural born citizen. That won’t settle the issue, but if the Senate does that every time the issue comes up, that builds up a body of precedent of how the Senate is interpreting this constitutional provision, which will bear some weight with the courts, if the matter ever goes there.
The fact that Obama is a Democrat gave the Donald Trumps and Orly Taitzs going, and turned the issue up to 2. The fact that Obama is black got the racist masses going at public rallies, and turned the issue up to 11.
I agree it’s a red herring in Obama’s case, but there is a legal twist that may prevent a US parent from passing citizenship to a child born abroad. It’s not automatic.
Under the law at the time Obama was born, the mother of a child born outside the US had to have lived in the US for at least 10 years, with five of the years after mother had turned 14 years old.
When Ann Dunham gave birth to Obama, she was 18 years old. That’s irrelevant for a birth in the US, but if the birther fantasies were true and she gave birth to him in Kenya, she wouldn’t have been able to pass on citizenship because she hadn’t lived in the US for five years after turning 14 (14 + 5 = 19; one year short).
It’s all silliness in Obama’s case, but there is a legal point that an American mother might not, in a very narrow factual range, have been able to pass on citizenship to her child.
The same rules apply to Cruz and his mother, of course, only he was actually born abroad, so it’s not just a fantasy to ask about it, as it is in Obama’s case.