Fox News lies in Texas Republican Sen. Cruz eligible to be president should he decide to run | Fox News when it says:
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada but is qualified to become president should he mount a campaign in 2016 or beyond.
The headline and first paragraph are highly misleading, especially when you read further down and the article admits:
The report states “the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including … those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”
However, Maskell points out in an expanded, Nov. 2011 memorandum “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”
Fox is wrong. Where Cruz was born is irrelevant, whether he is a US citizen is irrelevant – only thing relevant is the citizenship of his father at time he was born. His father was a Cuban citizen when Cruz was born. (BTW, Cruz’ father aided Castro initially, then came here, and took almost 50 years to get around to becoming a US citizen.)
Under natural law principles, every individual must be a natural born citizen (NBC) of one and only one country. Traditional rule is to go by father’s citizenship. If we used the mother’s citizenship, Cruz would be a NBC of two nations and we just cannot have that when talking about the Presidency.
Cases like Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which involved a child born on US soil to Chinese immigrants, are not relevant. Rightly or wrongly, the Court decided that US citizenship was based on place of birth (jus soli), rather than following the status of the father (jus sanguinis). However, Wong Kim Ark was not running for president, and the Founders in using the phrase NBC had very specific concerns for allegiance of the chief executive. A very good blog post on this subject can be found here. No court has yet decided this issue regarding presidential eligibility and that is where it is most critical to follow the true intent of the Founders.
Those relying on Wong Kim Ark are essentially saying my daughter Ayn (picture above) can run for president in both the USA and also in Ukraine. (Her mother was not yet a citizen when she was born, due to INS delays.) Almost as bad are those who would require BOTH parents to be US citizens for NBC because that would mean some US citizens, despite being born here in the US (again, my daughter Ayn) would not be a NBC of any country at all, and under natural international law principles everyone must be a NBC of one and only one country. I think those who demand use of BOTH parents are shying away out of political correctness from the traditional standard that citizenship of the FATHER alone determines NBC. The fact is there are very real differences between fathers and mothers (fighting on the battlefield, focus outside the home, etc.) and so the traditional standard under the law of nations (jus sanguinis) makes sense. (“If I’m fighting for my country, to hell with anyone who says my daughter is not NBC!”) Regardless, it is unavoidable if NBC is to make any logical sense–only the citizenship of the FATHER is relevant to NBC. (This was never an issue before because adjustment rarely took long and the citizenship of wives followed that of the husband in short order.)
I actually like Cruz and identify with his issue positions, but the fact he considers himself eligible for the Presidency puts me on guard. Ditto Marco Rubio, who has turned out to be not as conservative as we were all led to believe by media attempts to anoint a leader for the tea party movement–a leader with built-in, planned obsolescence.