Last summer, Senator Ted Cruz announced that he would take action to formally give up his Canadian citizenship. It has been confirmed that Cruz fulfilled his promise and has officially given up his Canadian citizenship. Cruz is said to have received a letter on Tuesday dated May 14, 2014 which reads,
“The person named above has formally renounced Canadian citizenship and pursuant to the Citizenship Act will cease to be a citizen.”
You can view the letter here.
The prevailing assumption is that Cruz has his sights set on the White House in 2016 which is what likely prompted the move to officially part ways with Canada. Aside from being born there, Cruz isn’t thought to have ever really had ties to the country. None the less, he dealt with a lot of scrutiny on this issue both in the media and by the left (which is quite often, one in the same).
Not surprisingly, liberals are leading the charge against a Cruz candidacy in 2016, while conveniently focusing on whether or not Cruz is constitutionally able to run for president. (I say conveniently because liberals have made it a habit of trashing the constitution on various issues when they see a part of it as an obstacle to their agenda; whereas in this case, they hold it up in high esteem as if God himself wrote the document.)
Before I continue I want to be clear, I’m no constitutional scholar so I am not making any determinations here.
According to American law, a foreign born baby is entitled to American citizenship so long as at least one parent is an American citizen. Similarly, Canadian law grants automatic citizenship for almost anyone born in the country. But what complicates the issue isn’t whether his Canadian citizenship made him ineligible; it’s an issue of whether or not he is considered a “natural born” citizen.
This is important because the Constitution clearly requires a president to be a “natural born” citizen. According to popular understanding, one must be physically born on American soil. However, because Cruz was entitled to American citizenship at birth, many people have come to the conclusion that he is still eligible to be president.
The issue of eligibility and what it means to be a “natural born” citizen is nothing new. I probably don’t need to remind anyone about the controversy over whether or not Barack Obama was eligible to be president. And most of you likely remember that during that same 2008 presidential campaign, a similar argument was raised as to whether John McCain was considered a “natural born” citizen because he was born in the Canal Zone, which is a U.S. territory. It would seem to be that since this issue has popped up more than a few times now, seeking to determine a universally accepted definition of natural born citizen would be a great way to finally put this to rest.
Many on the left are getting hung up on other technicalities. One writer over at the left wing site DailyKOS had this to say about Cruz:
Under the nationality law in effect at the time of Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada in December 1970 (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, part of Title 8 of the U.S. Code), in order for Ted Cruz’s mother to automatically confer citizenship on him at birth, these requirements need to have been met:
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
Cruz, that crafty devil, didn’t disclose anything about that. So maybe he was a U.S. citizen at birth. Or maybe not. WE DON’T AND CAN’T POSSIBLY KNOW at this point.
Yea, let that stew for a while.
But back to Cruz.. If one thing is clear in all of this, it’s that there needs to be more clarity. I would hope both sides can agree to that. Even if the Democrats are just blood thirsty without a genuine care for the rule of law, it should be of no consequence to principled Republicans. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if there is an inherent flaw in the Republican nominee, such as questions of eligibility, the Democrats and the media will exploit it to the full extent possible. But more than that, Republicans must be the party that consistently upholds the constitution, not just when it’s politically convenient.
What is your opinion on Cruz’s eligibility? Do you want to see him run for president in 2016? Comment below.