politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Donald Trump: Ted Cruz's citizenship could 'be a big problem'
Source:
USA Today
URL Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ ... z-canada-citizenship/78325076/
Published: Jan 5, 2016
Author: David Jackson
Post Date: 2016-01-05 20:32:38 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 10964
Comments: 47
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz during a recent debate in Las Vegas. (Photo: AP) Birther-ism, Part II? Donald Trump, who famously questioned whether President Obama was really born in Hawaii, is now raising questions about the Canadian birth of Republican presidential campaign rival Ted Cruz. “Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’" Trump told The Washington Post in reference to the Texas senator. "That’d be a big problem ... It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.” While born in Canada, Cruz and allies have said he is eligible for the presidency because his mother's status as an American citizen made him a citizen upon his birth. His father was born in Cuba. Since his election to the U.S. Senate from Texas in 2012, Cruz has released his birth certificate and renounced his Canadian citizenship. Still, some critics of Cruz have suggested taking the issue to court. “I’d hate to see something like that get in his way," Trump told the Post. "But a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport.” Trump made the comments as Cruz has passed him in polls in Iowa, which opens the GOP nomination process with caucuses on Feb. 1. Cruz responded to Trump's jibe with a tweet showing a famous scene from the 1970s sitcom Happy Days, one in which the character Fonzie jumps over a school of sharks on water skis — inspiring the term "jump the shark," used to describe the moment at which a television show begins to lose its quality. My response to @realDonaldTrump calling into question my natural-born citizenship? https://t.co/gWfAHznlCY— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) January 5, 2016 Poster Comment: 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
#11. To: TooConservative (#0)
(Edited)
It is good that Trump raised the issue. The issue of "natural born" SHOULD have been resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Obama, but the Republicans (who control the Court and both houses of Congress) have studiously avoided the question for 8 years. Obama was born in Kenya, probably. The Hawaii birth certificate is a fraud, probably. If that's so - and it was never investigated under oath with cross before a tribunal that could deny Obama the right to be on the ballot for election or re-election - then under the law of 1961, Obama wasn't an American citizen at birth. But Cruz was, through his mother, even if born in Canada. That is IF the citizenship of parents is the deciding factor. If being born on US soil is what is required for "natural born" to be fulfilled, then neither Cruz nor Obama are eligible. This issue was never decided by the Supreme Court. It was dodged for Obama, not resolved. Trump, to his credit, did not let go of it. He asked the question about Obama, and was dismissed as another crazy "Birther". Well, the Birthers aren't crazy. They have a point - an important one - and that point should have already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Obama got away with it, but that doesn't mean that the issue has been resolved by precedent. Chester Arthur may have gotten away with it too, but the question remains legally unanswered. It ought to be answered. Trump raised it regarding Obama. He just raised it regarding Cruz - same issue - and it's a LEGITIMATE question that NEEDS an answer. By bringing it up, Trump put the issue back in play. In a Trump presidency, it will be resolved properly before a court, or by an executive interpretation which will require a court or act of Congress to overturn. We have deserved to know the final legal answer to this question since 2008. Trump is doing good service by bringing it back up. I know what I think the answer SHOULD be, but my opinion is not writ. Supreme Court decision is, and we need one of those. In this more-and-more immigrant-filled world, we need to know, beforehand, exactly who is and who is not eligible to run for President, stated in 21st Century language, in full detail. The "natural born" clause of the Constitution has turned into a cypher. We need to give it bones, flesh...and teeth.
Obama was born in Kenya, probably. The Hawaii birth certificate is a fraud, probably. If that's so - and it was never investigated under oath with cross before a tribunal that could deny Obama the right to be on the ballot for election or re-election - then under the law of 1961, Obama wasn't an American citizen at birth. But Cruz was, through his mother, even if born in Canada. That is IF the citizenship of parents is the deciding factor. If being born on US soil is what is required for "natural born" to be fulfilled, then neither Cruz nor Obama are eligible. I wrote this is 2008 when this birther nonsense 1st erupted . The law may have changed since then ;but I don't think so. Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. CodeSec 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth": -Anyone born inside the United States -Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe -Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. -Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national -Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year -Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 -Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) -A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. So even if the evidence shows that he was born outside the US and his Hawaii birth certificate was a fraud ;he would still be qualified . No SCOTUS should not rule on it . The problem is that the other 2 requirements are unambiguous ;while this 'natural born' provision is open to interpretation based on what we think the founders meant by it. I don't want to waste time arguing intent ;or what the historic definition of 'natural born ' means .The truth is that we are well past the time that the Constitution should be amended to clear up the issue.
Vic thinks only the Court can possibly define NB status. So those uppity laws you're quoting that have been on the books for so long are meaningless, as were the prior laws defining NB status. Strangely enough, the Court never struck down all those NB laws Congress kept passing and, in the handful of cases they did hear, they only interpreted the NB laws as written by Congress.
Cite me "all those laws" that use the specific term "Natural Born". It's an important term. It's like "Declaration of War" - a term that has specific meaning. If you don't declare war but do a police action, the law is different. If an immigration and naturalization statute speaks of birth right citizenship but doesn't use "natural born", that law is not addressing the specific narrow matter of constitutional eligibility for the Presidency.
I am not going to spend the day on your idiocy. The Court has always declined every opportunity to define NB itself. It has had plenty of chances to do so.
Of course, the real reason you gave me that curt response is that when you went to find the immigration laws that had "natural born" in it, your search ended with the first Judiciary Act. So, when you looked, you discovered that I was right about the point I was making. And I enrage and disgust you, so you're never going to concede something like that to me. Instead, you just insulted me and walked away. It's an example of how divided and angry Americans are. We cannot agree, or cooperate, or be civil. So it's a verbal war...one that the more numerous win.
There are no replies to Comment # 35. End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#25. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#11)
The issue of "natural born" SHOULD have been resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Obama, but the Republicans (who control the Court and both houses of Congress) have studiously avoided the question for 8 years.
#27. To: tomder55, Vicomte13, nolu chan (#25)
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. CodeSec 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth":
#29. To: TooConservative (#27)
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
If an immigration and naturalization statute speaks of birth right citizenship but doesn't use "natural born", that law is not addressing the specific narrow matter of constitutional eligibility for the Presidency.
#35. To: TooConservative (#30)
I am not going to spend the day on your idiocy.
Replies to Comment # 35.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]