(February 4, 2016 at 6:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That a safeguard can be circumvented is no reason not to have them, or more specifically, to get rid of them.
True, but I feel that in this case the safeguard has the potential to do more damage than it attempts to prevent. In this day and age, becoming President is a huge task, all parts of your life are scrutinized. The political process does more to weed out potential threats to the presidency than any law restricting eligibility.
In addition, whilst the president is an important role, there are many other important roles in government which do not have this restriction. I do not believe, for instance, that a Supreme Court Justice has to be a natural born citizen, nor does the Speaker of the House. Both effectively control the other two branches of government.
One could argue that a Supreme Court made up entirely of naturalized US citizens, or a Congress made up entirely (or mostly) of naturalized US citizens could pose more threat to the U.S. than the President.
(February 4, 2016 at 6:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote: That is the question. The Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark ruled that a child born to Chinese nationals within the US was a US citizen. It is harder to find cases dealing with the opposite question, namely the status of a child born outside of the US to US parent(s).
I did find Montana v. Kennedy, 1961: Make of it what you will:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-co...6/308.html
Quote:Petitioner's mother is a native-born citizen of the United States and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States and has never been naturalized. Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. -
The U.S. Travel website states the following: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...broad.html
Quote:Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
So, Ted Cruz was born in 1970, meaning his mother had to have been physically present in the U.S. for at least 10 years, or 5 after the age of 14. Apparently Cruz released his mother's birth certificate, which states that she was born in Delaware on Nov. 23, 1934. So, assuming that she spent at least the first 10 years of her life in the United States, that would make Ted Cruz a U.S. Citizen at birth.
