Ted Cruz and the Revitalized Birther Issue
Credit: (AP) via USA Today
Please explain to me the difference between being born to an American citizen and being born to an American citizen. Other than the second option being italicized, there is no difference. During the Republican Presidential Debate held by Fox Business in the state of South Carolina, the “Birther” phenomena made another guest appearance. However, this time it was directed at a Canadian born candidate rather than a Hawaii (which is in the USA) born candidate.
Quick review of the issue: Article II Section I Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;” Recall how much consternation the “natural born” part of that clause stirred two election cycles ago. Racists high and low demanded (future President) Barack Obama was ineligible from serving in the nation’s highest office because he was born in Kenya (amongst other cockamamie conspiracies).
Moving on to a new candidate. This one, unlike our current President was NOT born in the United States (as the Constitution requires).
Senator Ted Cruz representing the state of Texas was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. His mother, Eleanor Darragh, an American citizen was born in Delaware. Like President Obama, Cruz’s father was born abroad, and like President Obama, Cruz’s mother was born and raised in the United States of America and was an American citizen during his birth.
This will be one of the few times I utter these words: Trump has a point (yes, that was torture just to type those words). But it’s true; should Cruz become the nominee, he has a constitutional battle ahead. The Supreme Court will be asked to answer, “What does natural born mean?” In my estimation it means, born in the United States or on U.S. Territory (as was the case for Arizona US Senator, John McCain). But this post is not concerned with that constitutional issue.
This post is meant to highlight the hypocrisy of many (including Cruz) claiming President Obama was ineligible because he was allegedly born in Kenya. Thankfully FACT and good reason put that nonsense to rest. Regardless, let’s entertain the insane for a moment. Imagine (future President) Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya. If we applied Ted Cruz’s logic, that would not matter because Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham was an American citizen who was born and raised in Wichita, Kansas (like Delaware, Kansas is in the USA).
Just to recap:
• Ted Cruz was born in Canada (NOT a US territory)
• Eleanor Darragh, an American citizen born in Delaware, birthed Cruz in Canada
• Barack Obama was born in Hawaii (one of 50 US states)
• Ann Dunham, an American citizen born in Kansas, birthed Obama in Hawaii
Why the hypocrisy?
Cruz alleges his eligibility to serve as president derives from the fact that his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth. If that is true, despite the fifth clause of Article II of the US Constitution, any person, born anywhere on the planet is eligible to be President of the United States, so long as one of their parents is an American citizen.
So why didn’t Cruz supporters defend President Obama from the attacks? Better yet, why did Obama endure such vicious, mostly racist, attacks in the first place? If Cruz’s theory is accurate (I don’t believe it is) whether President Obama was born in Hawaii, or Kenya, or a manger in Bethlehem, it shouldn’t have mattered.
Why is Cruz is getting a pass for something that dogged the Obama campaign for several years? The easy answer is racism – but that’s too easy.
How do Cruz supporter’s answers for this blatant hypocrisy? Or, as I asked in the open: Please explain to me the difference between being born to an American citizen and being born to an American citizen.
Hypocrisy
