From USA Today:
WASHINGTON -- The questions about Sen. Ted Cruz's citizenship may just be beginning.
Political analysts said Tuesday that Cruz may think he's tamping down a controversy by renouncing his previously unknown Canadian citizenship, but the situation may prove to be nettlesome — just like questions about President Obama's citizenship.
Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, calls it the "nuisance factor."
"If we learned anything from the allegations surrounding President Obama's citizenship, it's this: Facts may be stubborn things, but people's beliefs can be a lot more stubborn than the facts," Scala said. "Many people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts, especially when it's about a public figure they do not like in the first place."
Cruz, a Tea Party favorite still in his first year in the Senate, said Monday night he will renounce his Canadian citizenship, following a Dallas Morning News report that the Texas senator holds dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship.
Cruz has been making speeches to the GOP faithful in key states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, appearances that have helped land him on early lists of potential 2016 presidential candidates. Cruz released his birth certificate to the Dallas newspaper amid concerns about his eligibility to be president.
The document showed Cruz was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada. His mother, Eleanor, was born in Delaware and was a U.S. citizen and his father, Rafael, was born in Cuba. Cruz had said in interviews prior to his Senate election that he is a U.S. citizen because his mother was born in the USA.
So what? Cruz is way more legit than Obama was. If Obama's questionable background was good enough, the Cruz passes with flying colors.
ReplyDeleteObama's problem came from more than the fact he was born in Kenya.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Ted Cruz, chastened by his brush with un-American identity, will proceed with greater empathy for those on the margins of American life. Perhaps leaders in his party will learn to forego the short-term electoral benefits of whipping up white fear of decline and white mistrust of people who may seem foreign. And perhaps activists from the other party will resist the temptation to brand any nonwhite conservative as a traitor or a fraud.
DeleteOr perhaps not. What is certain is that the rest of this century will bring only more and more visible instances of political leaders who embody the ethnic complexity and impurity of citizenship in the United States. The party that figures out best how to embrace that complexity and convert it into an asset will be not just the majority party. It will be the most American party.
Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
spot on Jimbo....
DeleteThere are no margins, no lower, middle, or upper Mick. Those that promote that are not American's.
DeleteAmerican's don't believe in that.
1773-2009
Mick, do you have any thoughts of your own? One can speculate logically that since you chose this particular pablum to spew forth, that you share it's sentiments. To that, I ask how you qualify any of it as a response to me?
DeleteYes, Paine did use the term “native of the country.” Does this mean
ReplyDelete“native born” instead of “natural born?” We have to look at the
following statements to answer that question.Paine refers to Engish examples
in order to define this. Paine cites “foreigner” and “half a
foreigner” as the oppposite to “full natural” connection to the
country. So, what is “half a foreigner?”
It seems to me that “half a foreigner” is a person with one parent who is
a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a “full
natural… connection with the country.”
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want “half-foreigners” to
be president, and why only people with a “full natural… connection with
the country” were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of
Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the
common person.
Paine’s description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I
take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was,
after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution.
If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens,
then that was the plain meaning.
M. Boersma