Over on WESH, Channel 2 out of Orlando, Florida, Sen Cruz again suggested US statutes makes him an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, or did he?
Here is the transcript...sorry about the caps.
JOSH: FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW, YOU WERE BORN IN CANADA. ANY QUESTIONS SURROUNDING ELIGIBILITY THERE?
SENATOR CRUZ: THERE ARE NO SERIOUS QUESTIONS. MY MOTHER WAS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN. U.S. LAW HAS DEFINED A U.S. CHILD BORN ABROAD IS A U.S. CITIZEN. JOHN MCCAIN WAS BORN IN PANAMA. GEORGE ROMNEY WAS BORN IN MEXICO. HIS PARENTS WERE MORMON MISSIONARIES DOWN THERE.
BARRY GOLDWATER WAS BORN IN ARIZONA BEFORE ARIZONA WAS A STATE. IT WAS A TERRITORY. THE LEGAL QUESTIONS COME UP MULTIPLE TIMES. IT IS CLEAR THE CHILD OF A U.S. CITIZEN BORN ABROAD IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Although Sen Cruz is welcome to his own opinions and beliefs as to his presidential eligibility when he states at the conclusion of this segment, "It is clear the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen, he is quite wrong to imply U.S. law makes it so.
Notice at the very beginning of the transcript how Sen Cruz first tries to tie U.S. Law into supporting his final conclusion, when, in fact, as he, himself, plainly states: "U.S. law has defined a U.S. child born abroad as a U.S. citizen." As Sen Cruz well knows, there is absolutely nothing in U.S. law that would make a child born abroad of a U.S. citizen parent an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen.
Moreover, the three examples he uses to justify his own conclusion have also been seriously questioned, but he makes no note of these controversies .
But first, let's look as the law Sen Cruz was talking about:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) (d)
d. This statute is no longer operative (The 1790 naturalization Act), however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF "IN THE UNITED STATES" (c)
c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
This was John McCain's problem. This statement simply means a person born abroad on a U.S. military installation is not necessarily within U.S. jurisdiction. First a treaty has to be negotiated and signed with the host country. When this has been completed, Congress must pass specific legislation authorizing said U.S. military installation to be within US jurisdiction. Unfortunately for John McCain, all this took place 11 months after his birth, but was deemed retro-active to 1902; the problem still remained: Congress simply doesn't have the authority to statutorily make someone an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen.
George Romney was born in Mexico to expatriated Mormon parents. That made him a citizen of Mexico at birth and not a US citizen “natural born” or otherwise.
Lastly, Sen Cruz mentions Barry Goldwater. The Arizona Territory was an organized territory of the United States that existed between 1863 and 1912, when the state of Arizona was admitted to the US. The inhabitants of an "organized territory of the United States" are considered US citizens upon becoming a territory of the United States. This was the case with Berry Goldwater. He was born on January 2, 1909, in Phoenix, Arizona Territory. Arizona became a state in 1912, after adopting the US Constitution, which allowed Berry Goldwater to take full advantage of the grandfather clause contained in Art. II §I Cl. 5.