Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #15

---

Gramma - why is he not constitutionally able to run?

---

Re: post #10. Very well said, F.

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #16

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #15

---

Gramma - why is he not constitutionally able to run?

---

Because he was not born under U.S. jurisdiction (i.e., the nation of Canada) and his father was not a U.S. Citizen.

Natural Born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was defined (and I was taught this in school) as a child of two citizens born within U.S. jurisdiction.

It was also defined again in 1866:

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

This is why he is not qualified. It does not matter that his mother was a citizen as his father was not. But even if you discount U.S. jurisdiction there is still the matter of the Father. Natural born derives from the citizenship of the Father, not just the mother.

Read more here from the federalist blog:

The Federalist Blog on Natural Born Citizen

I realize these definitions and meanings have been lost, but to me they are still very much relevant. Because the Constitution cannot be compromised or its meanings changed. Because then our republic is lost. Therefore I cannot support someone who I would otherwise agree with if I cannot trust them to safeguard the Constitution.

---

Be VERY careful about citing anything from Politifact.... just one point of reference: About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ

(As noted in the linked source, anything to do with the Tampa Bay Slimes is, more often than not, leftist tripe.)

Quote: FWP wrote in post #19

---

Be VERY careful about citing anything from Politifact.... just one point of reference: About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ

(As noted in the linked source, anything to do with the Tampa Bay Slimes is, more often than not, leftist tripe.)

---

As I said above, I like a lot of what Ted Cruz says. And his list of accomplishments at such a relatively young age is both remarkable and impressive!!

But I find this troubling:

Sen. Cruz Presents Measure to Strengthen, Improve Legal Immigration

Zitat

---

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today presented an amendment to the Gang of Eight immigration bill that would improve our nation’s legal immigration system by increasing high-skilled temporary worker visas, called H-1B visas, by 500 percent.

---

That raises questions for me, is the Senator unaware that this well financed and well coordinated push by the likes of Zuckerberg & Schmidt is based on the proven LIES that there is a shortage of STEM workers in the US?? Or does it not bother him?? Which is it??


Why Are Tech Companies Laying Off Americans Doing the Jobs They Say They Need Immigrants to Fill?

Zitat

---

RUSH: They want the same quality. They want the same education. They want the same engineering skills, for half the money. And they can do that or even less, you know, half the wages, by importing foreigners on H-1B visas who theoretically will work for less money than Americans who have the same qualifications. That's what the objective actually appears to be. Yes.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So essentially the H-1B visa program brings in cheaper workers that are highly qualified that will take the place of current American employees, same qualifications, and they require less pay because they're immigrants and they'll do anything to get here, and that's what is going on. Straightened it out now.

---

f

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #20

---

Quote: FWP wrote in post #19

---

Be VERY careful about citing anything from Politifact.... just one point of reference: About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ

(As noted in the linked source, anything to do with the Tampa Bay Slimes is, more often than not, leftist tripe.)

---

I am aware of that. One would expect a pro-Cruz site to offer an explanation as to why he was eligible. The fact that this site is not a site supportive of conservative values makes its argument even more compelling.

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #23

---

Thanks for posting the links that back up my post #4:
Sen. Ted Cruz announces his presidential bid

(I'm multi-tasking alternating posting with garbahge in reality [I'm down to about 8 imp things] and just didn't have time to look them up.}

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #24

---

I forgot to add that tech companies and large corporate don't even care if the H-1B' s have the same skills or are even competent. All that counts is that pretend to have the same skills and are way cheaper.

H-1B's often pay no or minimal income tax because the laws governing this are implemented on the honor system. Also they often get grants to study unlike Americans who must take out loans and pay back with interest.

H-1B visa holders represent a growing % of illegal aliens and work under the same circumstances - those who place them are called body shops.

---

BTW, he signed up for Obamacare.

Now he has legal standing.

http://time.com/3757065/ted-cruz-obamacare/

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #18

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #16

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #15

---

Gramma - why is he not constitutionally able to run?

---

Because he was not born under U.S. jurisdiction (i.e., the nation of Canada) and his father was not a U.S. Citizen.

Natural Born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was defined (and I was taught this in school) as a child of two citizens born within U.S. jurisdiction.

It was also defined again in 1866:

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

This is why he is not qualified. It does not matter that his mother was a citizen as his father was not. But even if you discount U.S. jurisdiction there is still the matter of the Father. Natural born derives from the citizenship of the Father, not just the mother.

Read more here from the federalist blog:

The Federalist Blog on Natural Born Citizen

I realize these definitions and meanings have been lost, but to me they are still very much relevant. Because the Constitution cannot be compromised or its meanings changed. Because then our republic is lost. Therefore I cannot support someone who I would otherwise agree with if I cannot trust them to safeguard the Constitution.

---

Gramma, very thorough answer.

Two points: if Cruz is ineligible, then 0bama is ineligible. Secondly, a great number of supposed experts claim that Cruz is eligible.

For instance: "Can Ted Cruz run for president if he was born in Canada?

The Republican senator from Texas says he can. And just to be sure, he’s taking the extra step of renouncing the Canadian citizenship he says he didn’t even know he had.

Cruz -- full name: Rafael Edward Cruz --was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.

By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.

So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.

Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.

Constitutional requirements

The Constitution says any candidate for president must be 35 years of age, a resident within the United States for 14 years and a "natural born citizen."

We’ve looked at the question of natural born citizenship before. Back in 2008, people raised questions about the "natural born" citizenship status of both major party candidates.

We’ve fact-checked several statements about President Barack Obama’s place of birth and his birth certificate. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and his mother was a U.S. citizen. His father was Kenyan.

We also looked at the case of John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone because his American father served in the military. McCain, the 2008 GOP nominee, saw his standing briefly challenged in court.

Interestingly, both of McCain’s potential Democratic opponents -- Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton -- co-sponsored a Senate measure to settle McCain’s eligibility. The April 2008 resolution said, "John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

Defining "natural born"

So what is a "natural born" citizen? The Constitution doesn’t specifically say.

In 2008, we reviewed research and polled several legal experts. The consensus was that someone is a "natural born" citizen if they have citizenship at birth and don’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen...."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...-run-president/

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #16

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #15

---

Gramma - why is he not constitutionally able to run?

---

Because he was not born under U.S. jurisdiction (i.e., the nation of Canada) and his father was not a U.S. Citizen.

Natural Born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was defined (and I was taught this in school) as a child of two citizens born within U.S. jurisdiction.

It was also defined again in 1866:

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

This is why he is not qualified. It does not matter that his mother was a citizen as his father was not. But even if you discount U.S. jurisdiction there is still the matter of the Father. Natural born derives from the citizenship of the Father, not just the mother.

Read more here from the federalist blog:

The Federalist Blog on Natural Born Citizen

I realize these definitions and meanings have been lost, but to me they are still very much relevant. Because the Constitution cannot be compromised or its meanings changed. Because then our republic is lost. Therefore I cannot support someone who I would otherwise agree with if I cannot trust them to safeguard the Constitution.

---