Game Of Thrones/Ted Cruz & Natural Born Citizenship

While posting in another thread regarding the definition of the term "natural born citizen," I had a "wake up moment."

I posed this question in that thread, but I felt like it deserved a thread of it's own. If you Mods disagree, feel free to move or delete it.

I'm a big "Game Of Thrones" fan and I've noticed that a common theme among rulers of old is for them to marry off their children to the children of other rulers in order to gain power and/or favoritism in other kingdoms.

Now, seeing how we were just celebrating our newfound independence from England, does anyone really think that our founding fathers would have left that door open for future generations to deal with?

Would they have allowed for an American citizen to marry a English ruler and have kids born in England who would be eligible to run for POTUS in the future?

I find that hard to believe and I'm thinking they would have been quite guarded about that very issue and/or ever allowing this nation's highest office to be swayed by foreign influence again.

The more I think about this issue, the more I believe the term "natural born" was deliberately used and I definitely believe it means born on U.S. soil. (Territory)

Ain't it funny how a fictional movie can cause you to look at things from a different perspective?

Thoughts?

originally posted by: Flatfish
The more I think about this issue, the more I believe the term "natural born" was deliberately used and I definitely believe it means born on U.S. soil.

I had one son born in Japan due to being in the military there at the time. When he popped out he was instantly an American and shortly there after I had to get him an American passport at the US embassy, so where in all that is soil a part of it?

a reply to: Flatfish

I love "Game of Thrones". As you watch it, your mind makes all kinds of connections and analogies. I read your comment in that other post, and thought it was spot on.

I also don't think a child born to two foreigners, especially ones that sneaked into a country illegally, were intended to have citizenship. That issue should be readdressed in the courts in my opinion.

a reply to: Flatfish

Game of thrones is an excellent reminder of why the U.S. WAS lucky to have the pond between the two nations.

Isn't an Embassy considered "U.S. soil"? Personally, I don't have a problem with Cruz's status as qualified for the Presidency. Conversely, we didn't see this kind of scrutiny for Obama? Possibly correcting a past mistake or merely two standards?...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Flatfish
The more I think about this issue, the more I believe the term "natural born" was deliberately used and I definitely believe it means born on U.S. soil.

I had one son born in Japan due to being in the military there at the time. When he popped out he was instantly an American and shortly there after I had to get him an American passport at the US embassy, so where in all that is soil a part of it?

Probably just a bad choice of words on my part.

I believe the actual wording to be U.S. territory and I believe American citizens serving in the military on U.S. bases abroad under orders from our commander in chief, falls within that definition.

Same as John McCain.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Conversely, we didn't see this kind of scrutiny for Obama?

.........

We STILL see the scrutiny for obama in this issue.

This issue is pretty far down the list on why Cruz shouldn't be president for me personally, but if he has american parents then I am pretty sure he is in the clear.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nwtrucker

Conversely, we didn't see this kind of scrutiny for Obama?

.........

We STILL see the scrutiny for obama in this issue.

This issue is pretty far down the list on why Cruz shouldn't be president for me personally, but if he has american parents then I am pretty sure he is in the clear.

We 'still' see it due to the fact we didn't see it BEFORE the nomination/election...

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Flatfish

I love "Game of Thrones". As you watch it, your mind makes all kinds of connections and analogies. I read your comment in that other post, and thought it was spot on.

I also don't think a child born to two foreigners, especially ones that sneaked into a country illegally, were intended to have citizenship. That issue should be readdressed in the courts in my opinion.

But if that were the case, what about all the foreigners who were dragged here against their will and enslaved?

What about their kids?

I'm not ready to give up birthright citizenship because of some deficiencies in our immigration and border security programs.

IMO, There has to be some other way to effectively deal with those who abuse the system.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Flatfish

Game of thrones is an excellent reminder of why the U.S. WAS lucky to have the pond between the two nations.

Isn't an Embassy considered "U.S. soil"? Personally, I don't have a problem with Cruz's status as qualified for the Presidency. Conversely, we didn't see this kind of scrutiny for Obama? Possibly correcting a past mistake or merely two standards?...

If you don't think we saw this kind of scrutiny for Obama, may I suggest you google the term "birther movement."

This ain't nothing by comparison.

a reply to: Flatfish

My only answer would be to start now, change it and begin again....from square one.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nwtrucker

Conversely, we didn't see this kind of scrutiny for Obama?

.........

We STILL see the scrutiny for obama in this issue.

This issue is pretty far down the list on why Cruz shouldn't be president for me personally, but if he has american parents then I am pretty sure he is in the clear.

We 'still' see it due to the fact we didn't see it BEFORE the nomination/election...

The hell we didn't!

They even blamed Hillary for being the one who put it out there during the campaign.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Conversely, we didn't see this kind of scrutiny for Obama?

I don't know where you were in 2007-2012, but there were MANY threads here starting in 2007 with FAR more "scrutiny" on Obama's birth than Ted Cruz will EVER see. It was in the news regularly. Just a small sample:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Flatfish

My only answer would be to start now, change it and begin again....from square one.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying and I think it's definitely a valid topic for debate.

I'm just not ready to go that far yet.

I'd be more inclined to consider denying visas to foreign women in their last trimester who are trying to enter the country.

All I'm saying is that these children of illegal immigrants and/or refugees, generally grow up every bit as American as I am and many even join our military and fight our wars.

Border security is a problem that needs constant attention, but I'm not ready to forfeit birthright citizenship because of shortfalls in our system.

But that's just me.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nwtrucker

Conversely, we didn't see this kind of scrutiny for Obama?

.........

We STILL see the scrutiny for obama in this issue.

This issue is pretty far down the list on why Cruz shouldn't be president for me personally, but if he has american parents then I am pretty sure he is in the clear.

We 'still' see it due to the fact we didn't see it BEFORE the nomination/election...

The hell we didn't!

They even blamed Hillary for being the one who put it out there during the campaign.

Hillary's campaign did put it out there first.

I was never into the whole Obama birther thing, but I did wonder as more and more information came out if it would ever really be 100% resolved. Even today, there are people that are insistent that he is not who he says he is and that there has been an on-going effort to keep his identity under wraps.

Loretta Fundy, the woman that finally released Obama's still-controversial birth certificate in Apr. 2011 had just been appointed Hawaii Health Department Director the month before.

She died in the crash of a Cessna a couple of years later. The other eight people on board all survived.

The controversy and questionable birth status was made more complicated and suspicious because his parents were both dead, and all but one grandmother was also dead, and that grandmother who was the one that actually raised him, died, unfortunately, two days before he was elected.

So, I don't think it is resolvable! There will always be people that wonder and doubt his authenticity. Who can really know with 100% certainty.

a reply to: Flatfish

I disagree with you on this. I think the founders wanted pretty open borders because they needed people to colonize. Aside from the obvious biases against "uncivilized peoples" I don't think they cared if they were English, French, Spaniard, Dutch, Italian, German or Norwegian. As long as they were going to settle, build and fight with loyalty to the idea of America it was okay. This continued through Constitution days and after. I think this is why the Constitution is vague on the matter and it's never been clarified since. I think it's better to leave it vague, personally... even though I despise Cruz.

It's fun (meanie Kali, I know) to tease Obama birthers that now support Cruz or don't care that he's running but that's about it for me. I have no problem with his eligibility because of where he was born.

Personally I think him being a Theocrat is what makes him ineligible.

originally posted by: Flatfish

I had one son born in Japan due to being in the military there at the time. When he popped out he was instantly an American and shortly there after I had to get him an American passport at the US embassy, so where in all that is soil a part of it?.

I'm not sure how you can say that a child with American parents can not be President because they were not on US soil when born. I think we would have a better case with Obama but we can all see how that went.

a reply to: Flatfish

You’re absolutely right. This was a common occurrence all the way up until the first world war.


The kings of Russia, Germany and England and I think Austria too, were all closely related.


Indeed, as they were starting and planning the first great war in 1914 all the main players were cousins, brothers, uncles, etc.

I recall a story about the birth of a Dutch Royal during WWII. The monarchy was in exile because of the Nazi occupation but then the child was born, a pan of dirt from the Netherlands was placed under the bed so that the child would symbolically be born "On Dutch soil"

I have too many of this little factoids stored in my head.

The only way i could see it would be able to happen under modern rules would be that the person giving birth did it inside the US embassy so its would be considered under international rules as part of the US.