It galls me to have to defend yet again the eligibility of Ted Cruz to be president of the United States. But discussion on the radio talk shows today indicates that the wrongful harm to Cruz’ campaign, resulting from Donald Trump’s devious baiting of the issue, continues.
Folks want to make up their own definition of the term “natural born citizen.” But we do have an actual definition of NBC that supports Senator Cruz. Maryland Law Review of Winter 1968 looked at this question with respect to George Romney. Page 7 points out that British law in 1677 and 1708 actually defined the children of a citizen who are born abroad as “natural-born”:
“There has been some debate whether the common law also encompassed the jus sanguinis, a product of the civil law and followed in most European countries, under which nationality could be transmitted by descent at the moment of birth.39 The fact is that the issue did not arise in the static feudal society, since there was little or no travel to foreign nations and children were not being born to British parents abroad. But the problem provoked discussions as mobility 40 and foreign trade increased.
In 1343, the situation of the foreign-born children of British sub- jects was discussed in Parliament. There was general agreement that the status of such children should be clarified in order to eliminate any doubts as to their rights of inheritance as Englishmen. The enactment of legislation was delayed by the ravages of the plague in England.41 However, in 1350, Parliament did enact a law for the express purpose of resolving existing doubts, which declared that the children born beyond the sea to British subjects “shall have and enjoy the same benefits and advantages” as their parents in regard to the right of inheritance.4 2
The first reference to such children as natural-born subjects apparently was in a 1677 law, which dealt with the children of persons who had fled to foreign countries during the Cromwell era, and declared such persons to be natural-born subjects.”3 More general legislation was enacted in 1708,4 and it provided that the foreign-born children of natural-born British subjects “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.” This legislation was further extended in 1773 to grant status as natural-born subjects to the grandchildren of natural-born subjects,: thus precluding the trans-mission of British nationality by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. 5″
But we have more than this, we have U.S. Code Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter III Part I Section 1401 Paragraph (g), which is clear that someone in Cruz’ situation is a natural born citizen. They use the term “citizen at birth” which means the same thing. Perhaps they wanted to modernize the language. Perhaps they did not want to define NBC via Constitutional amendment because of the misleading information and myths out there, which, as we see, continue to this day. We don’t know, but The U.S. Code the clearest document available and it’s LAW.
You are either natural born or naturalized. This whole dust-up is starting resemble an argument among 5th graders over how many angels on the head of a pin.
Under what rationale can birth at a particular place, which bears no relation to the human mind, be considered more important than the citizenship and loyalty of the woman who bore the child?
It is beyond disgusting that someone like Ted Cruz, who was raised here from earliest memory, and is fully American by law, tradition and heart, should be subjected to these lies and misinformation that have materially harmed his campaign by confusing the undecided. He has been the staunchest defender of our Constitutional rights and yet we turn on him. All for the cynical purpose of promoting a different candidate based on lies rather than issues.
Donald Trump, tell the many members of our armed forces that their children born overseas aren’t NBCs either. That they are somehow less qualified to be president than an anchor baby.