Senator Ted Cruz Unveils Obamacare Repeal Act

[jaysabi]

That idiot will never get this bill passed.

BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.

Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.

This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President.

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; 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.

NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status.

http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/

Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.

By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.

So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.

Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.

Constitutional requirements...

Cruz considers himself to be American-born, how quaint! Guess that settles it! "The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is." Well, with such an apparent wealth of sources on the topic, surely you could have posted a couple reputable ones? From what I've found, there is no definitive case law on the definition of "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter what arguments exist, it matters what actual law exists. Since Cruz was not born in the US, perhaps some liberals will challenge him and force him to defend his self-appointed natural born status and a court will finally create a precedent on what "natural born" definitively means. That's even assuming Cruz is viable enough to for people to take his candidacy seriously. (Hahahaha!)

I don't get the impression you understand the concepts, but then you don't need to to create polemical arguments.  

Regarding the actual facts, though, you have a case here of a baby born to a mother who is a US citizen, while in Canada.  Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.

Otherwise, why don't we have thousands of babies of US servicemen, stationed in Korea and marrying there, find their babies get draft orders for the South Korean military?   Stated in this fashion, you have made a ridiculous argument.

Wikipedia says this:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

Yes, yes, your arguments are understood, but they're nothing more than speculation until actual case law is established. Notice the source "indicates" instead of pointing to case law that actually states. It's not set until it's codified by Congress with a law stating so, or the judiciary through an interpretation of the undefined term "natural born." (Or I suppose in this age of abuse by the executive branch, by executive order.) You can be making a very good guess that's how it will play out, but it's still just a guess.

Also, the citizenship practices of other nations have zero bearing on the citizenship practices of the United States. Your South Korean example is perfectly refuted by the fact that exactly the opposite is true in America.

Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.

Not that it has any bearing on how other nations establish their citizenship requirements, but that's exactly how it works in America. If a foreign soldier is on duty in the United States and gives birth to a child, that child is automatically an American citizen by virtue of being born on US soil. Same for children of illegal immigrants, neither parent has to be an American, if the kid is born on US soil, they are automatically US citizens.

BTW, our conversation has pushed me to look for more information on this topic. I have found the following:

The Immigration and Nationality Act defines what constitutes a "citizen at birth." (It should be noted that this does not mean "natural born" but it is still a separate classification from someone who is a naturalized citizen. It will still take an act of Congress or the Supreme Court to equate "natural born" citizen with "citizen at birth.") Anyway, a "citizen at birth" is 1) anyone born on US soil, 2) a bunch of inapplicable scenarios, and 3):

a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date

The relevant portions of this section are: born outside the US after 1952, to one US citizen parent who lived at least 5 years in the US (2 of which were to be after the age of 14) and before the birth of the child. The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.

Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.

[Wilikon]

That idiot will never get this bill passed.

BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.

Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.

This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President.

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; 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.

NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status.

http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/

Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.

By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.

So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.

Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.

Constitutional requirements...

Cruz considers himself to be American-born, how quaint! Guess that settles it! "The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is." Well, with such an apparent wealth of sources on the topic, surely you could have posted a couple reputable ones? From what I've found, there is no definitive case law on the definition of "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter what arguments exist, it matters what actual law exists. Since Cruz was not born in the US, perhaps some liberals will challenge him and force him to defend his self-appointed natural born status and a court will finally create a precedent on what "natural born" definitively means. That's even assuming Cruz is viable enough to for people to take his candidacy seriously. (Hahahaha!)

I don't get the impression you understand the concepts, but then you don't need to to create polemical arguments.  

Regarding the actual facts, though, you have a case here of a baby born to a mother who is a US citizen, while in Canada.  Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.

Otherwise, why don't we have thousands of babies of US servicemen, stationed in Korea and marrying there, find their babies get draft orders for the South Korean military?   Stated in this fashion, you have made a ridiculous argument.

Wikipedia says this:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

Yes, yes, your arguments are understood, but they're nothing more than speculation until actual case law is established. Notice the source "indicates" instead of pointing to case law that actually states. It's not set until it's codified by Congress with a law stating so, or the judiciary through an interpretation of the undefined term "natural born." (Or I suppose in this age of abuse by the executive branch, by executive order.) You can be making a very good guess that's how it will play out, but it's still just a guess.

Also, the citizenship practices of other nations have zero bearing on the citizenship practices of the United States. Your South Korean example is perfectly refuted by the fact that exactly the opposite is true in America.

Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.

Not that it has any bearing on how other nations establish their citizenship requirements, but that's exactly how it works in America. If a foreign soldier is on duty in the United States and gives birth to a child, that child is automatically an American citizen by virtue of being born on US soil. Same for children of illegal immigrants, neither parent has to be an American, if the kid is born on US soil, they are automatically US citizens.

BTW, our conversation has pushed me to look for more information on this topic. I have found the following:

The Immigration and Nationality Act defines what constitutes a "citizen at birth." (It should be noted that this does not mean "natural born" but it is still a separate classification from someone who is a naturalized citizen. It will still take an act of Congress or the Supreme Court to equate "natural born" citizen with "citizen at birth.") Anyway, a "citizen at birth" is 1) anyone born on US soil, 2) a bunch of inapplicable scenarios, and 3):

a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date

The relevant portions of this section are: born outside the US after 1952, to one US citizen parent who lived at least 5 years in the US (2 of which were to be after the age of 14) and before the birth of the child. The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.

Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.

Translation: Cruz birtherism is a waste of carbon footprint...

[Spendulus]

....The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.

Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.

Sounds about right....OKAY, GO BACK TO anti-Cruz polemic, I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of it, but that darn "non citizen" thing, that dog ain't gonna hunt.

[jaysabi]

....The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.

Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.

Sounds about right....OKAY, GO BACK TO anti-Cruz polemic, I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of it, but that darn "non citizen" thing, that dog ain't gonna hunt.

I'm not saying non-citizen. My initial post on that matter was one of confusion as I did not have enough understanding of the circumstances of the situation. I feel I have a better understanding now. I accept he's a citizen, a citizen at birth, and very likely a natural born citizen, leaving open only the possibility that a court might decide otherwise. I'm no fan of Cruz, but I wouldn't support any legal challenge to the legitimacy of his presidential candidacy knowing what I know now.

[Spendulus]

....The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.

Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.

Sounds about right....OKAY, GO BACK TO anti-Cruz polemic, I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of it, but that darn "non citizen" thing, that dog ain't gonna hunt.

I'm not saying non-citizen. My initial post on that matter was one of confusion as I did not have enough understanding of the circumstances of the situation. I feel I have a better understanding now. I accept he's a citizen, a citizen at birth, and very likely a natural born citizen, leaving open only the possibility that a court might decide otherwise. I'm no fan of Cruz, but I wouldn't support any legal challenge to the legitimacy of his presidential candidacy knowing what I know now.

Let's just put it this way:  His claim to US eligibility to run for POTUS makes a laughing stock of Elizabeth Warren's claim to be a member of an ancient Indian nation.

[jaysabi]

....The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.

Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.

Sounds about right....OKAY, GO BACK TO anti-Cruz polemic, I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of it, but that darn "non citizen" thing, that dog ain't gonna hunt.

I'm not saying non-citizen. My initial post on that matter was one of confusion as I did not have enough understanding of the circumstances of the situation. I feel I have a better understanding now. I accept he's a citizen, a citizen at birth, and very likely a natural born citizen, leaving open only the possibility that a court might decide otherwise. I'm no fan of Cruz, but I wouldn't support any legal challenge to the legitimacy of his presidential candidacy knowing what I know now.

Let's just put it this way:  His claim to US eligibility to run for POTUS makes a laughing stock of Elizabeth Warren's claim to be a member of an ancient Indian nation.

I'm unfamiliar with her claim. Is it something outlandish, or are there good reasons to question it?

[Spendulus]

...
I'm unfamiliar with her claim. Is it something outlandish, or are there good reasons to question it?

Yeah, it was a complete lie she used to get advantage in getting a university teaching position, and also to get into schools (IIRC).  But don't worry, in the aftermath of the Obama presidency and the appeal to lower IQ voters, it'll be trending to advocate the "bad boy" image for candidates.

Of course, Hillary doesn't fit that and Warren sure doesn't look it or fit it.   But hey, you gotta work with what you got, right?

[Agestorzrxx]

Well, it looks like the game is on, let's see how many of the republicans are willing to do the right thing. Looks like it's time to go all in and call the democrats bluff and put them back on their heels.