General Discussion

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)

57. Getting a passport

Tue Jan 12, 2016, 04:44 PM

Jan 2016

Isn't that same as "natural born citizen." Lots of folks qualify for a passport who are certainly not "natural born citizens." If you were born in the US you are certainly "natural born," if not then the issue becomes less clear. I've also done some reading on the issue and wonder what sources you have.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's why the firestorm over Ted Cruz's Canadian birth is nothing like the Obama 'birther' controve [View all] applegrove Jan 2016 OP

Cruz knew there would be a question so he got out ahead of it. Obama had no way of knowing applegrove Jan 2016 #1

Exactly what you said, beveeheart Jan 2016 #53

Yes which may be why underthematrix Jan 2016 #2

Good point. n/t earthside Jan 2016 #4

That is not true. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #7

This registration has been in effect since 1959. underthematrix Jan 2016 #10

No, registration with SS was reinstated in the summer of 1980. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #11

Correct. murielm99 Jan 2016 #12

There has not been a draft in the US since 1973 underthematrix Jan 2016 #17

You need to go back and read my posts. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #19

yes. Some males are exempt underthematrix Jan 2016 #20

Yes, some were exempt from registering with Selectivr Service. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #21

I understand your brother and all males who were born the same year did not have to register with underthematrix Jan 2016 #24

I think it was all males who were in about a seven year period. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #27

All males born in 1957, 1958 and 1959 underthematrix Jan 2016 #34

I was not confused. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #38

I was not saying you were confused. I was saying the way the historical information was underthematrix Jan 2016 #43

I was born in the very early 60's Tab Jan 2016 #72

not true. no requirement for selective service reg for many years after 'nam. KG Jan 2016 #22

Cruz is not eligible to run for Prez Iliyah Jan 2016 #3

You seem awfully certain of that onenote Jan 2016 #5

Yep underthematrix Jan 2016 #6

I think the jury is out on that one. murielm99 Jan 2016 #13

I'm sure that he is. anigbrowl Jan 2016 #35

Getting a passport TeddyR Jan 2016 #57

In brief anigbrowl Jan 2016 #64

I agree TeddyR Jan 2016 #66

It is interesting anigbrowl Jan 2016 #69

Sure he is. This narrative is stupid. Bonx Jan 2016 #41

I think the difference is Democrats want to debate policy. rusty quoin Jan 2016 #8

Exactly. applegrove Jan 2016 #9

If his mom became a Canadian citizen before he was born, then ecstatic Jan 2016 #14

If his mother renounced her US citizenship prior to become Canadian, pnwmom Jan 2016 #15

Not only that, but wouldn't he need to resign from the Senate? ecstatic Jan 2016 #18

Maybe you could link to those "reports". former9thward Jan 2016 #50

She would have had to in order to be a registered voter, and her name is pnwmom Jan 2016 #52

Both countries allow dual citizenship former9thward Jan 2016 #62

He's not brown. KentuckyWoman Jan 2016 #16

Question: What happens if in October it's ruled he's ineligible? Reter Jan 2016 #23

Yep Liberal_in_LA Jan 2016 #25

Why should any US citizen not be eligible to serve as president, though? frizzled Jan 2016 #26

When the U.S. Constitution was being Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #28

But they are second class. They don't have identical rights to natural born Americans. frizzled Jan 2016 #32

Because they're all dead. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #33

Actually, I believe the provision was aimed directly at Alexander Hamilton KamaAina Jan 2016 #45

There appears to be evidence that his mother voted in the 1974 Canadian elections. Zen Democrat Jan 2016 #29

And, if she did, Cruz is now neither American NOR Canadian. beac Jan 2016 #30

Incorrect. There is nothing that prevents his Mother COLGATE4 Jan 2016 #31

Agree. Even if she voted fraudulently, not having Hortensis Jan 2016 #54

It wouldn't. You are absolutely correct. At the most COLGATE4 Jan 2016 #56

I expect you're right -- detached view infinitely desirable. Hortensis Jan 2016 #68

No, no, and no anigbrowl Jan 2016 #37

Thanks for good info, Anigbrowl. Hortensis Jan 2016 #55

Not true. former9thward Jan 2016 #51

Because the people who drafted the Constitution TeddyR Jan 2016 #59

Actually it's worse loyalsister Jan 2016 #36

But Constitutional Scholar Laurence Tribe Says The Issue is Still Unsettled 403Forbidden Jan 2016 #39

"The scholar cited by Donald Trump" loyalsister Jan 2016 #40

Tribe is a pretty damn big deal in constitutional law. Goblinmonger Jan 2016 #44

Irrelevant loyalsister Jan 2016 #46

Why is asking the question about the definition of "natural born citiszen" necessarily exploitative? 403Forbidden Jan 2016 #47

It's the "firestorm" that is exploitive loyalsister Jan 2016 #48

That's a ridiculous position TeddyR Jan 2016 #61

Questioning Cruz's Eligibility Is Not Birtherism 403Forbidden Jan 2016 #70

This message was self-deleted by its author loyalsister Jan 2016 #48

I think this whole argument in relation to Cruz is stupid Goblinmonger Jan 2016 #58

He is indeed, which is why I have his work at arm's reach anigbrowl Jan 2016 #67

I have zippadeedodah problems truebluegreen Jan 2016 #60

Thank you. This is a bullshit issue. His mother was a US citizen & never renounced her citizenship Bucky Jan 2016 #71

Now, should Democrats support "birtherism" against Cruz, to make sure Trump gets in? frizzled Jan 2016 #42

I'd rather we face Cruz than Trump. nt ecstatic Jan 2016 #63

The real issue is the uncertainty. Repubs have a tradition of playing on that. immoderate Jan 2016 #65