[score]Ted Cruz [/score]was born in Canada to a mother who is a “natural born Citizen” and a father who is a naturalized citizen. Ted Cruz’s father immigrated to the United States and lived here before going to Canada for work.
According to some conservatives and liberals, Ted Cruz is not constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States because both his parents are not natural born citizens, and he was born on foreign soil. Ted Cruz lived in Canada for four years.
The purpose of the “natural born Citizen” requirement was to insure that the President would not have dual allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power or ideology. It’s quite evident from the testimony of his father who escaped from Communist Cuba and Ted Cruz’s own background that the Senator is solidly loyal to the United States. I suspect that he doesn’t remember much about his time in Canada or the politics at the time.
There is nothing in Cruz’s background that would indicate that he has dual loyalty or is being influenced by a foreign ideology. His conservative rating is between 97 to 100 percent. No other presidential candidate, except maybe [score]Rand Paul[/score], comes close.
The founders had more in mind than just where a person was born since many of them were not natural born citizens and yet they drafted the Constitution.
“James Wilson (born in Carskerdo, Scotland), Alexander Hamilton (born out of wedlock, raised in the West Indies), and Robert Morris (Liverpool, United Kingdom) would not have qualified since they were born abroad to parents who were not American citizens. They were by definition ‘foreigners.’”
How could these foreign-born men draft a Constitution with their “divided loyalty”? Because even though they were born on foreign soil they established themselves as being fully loyal to the new nation.
Let me propose a scenario. Let’s say a couple from a Muslim nation moved to the United States and later became naturalized citizens. Two years later they had a son. Discontented with the United States and Muslim ascendancy in their original homeland, they moved back to their home country where they were thoroughly radicalized. Their son was also radicalized.
The son moves back to the United States as a teenager and continues with his radical beliefs.
Given the way some people are reading the Constitution, Ted Cruz, who has shown in word and deed from a very early age that he is a loyal American whose mother is a “natural born Citizen,” is considered to be ineligible while the radicalized Muslim born on US soil to parents who are citizens would be eligible. Is this what the founders had in mind? I don’t think so.
In addition, Ted Cruz is a Christian, and as a Christian he is required to submit to the governing authorities. A radical Muslim is not:
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:13-15; see Rom. 13:1-6).
Because the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” on matters in which it has governance, someone like Ted Cruz is bound by oath and principle to abide by its requirements.