Harvard Law Review is clear that the only consideration is that Cruz had at least one U.S. citizen parent – but what of that parent? What if he/she were naturalized?
The leftwing Washington Post takes the same data and comes to the diametric opposite conclusion to Harvard:
They state that the difference is that Cruz was born outside the U.S. and Obama inside. No, there is still much doubt over Obama being born within the U.S.
The Obama camp, plus the left-liberal press – WP, NYT etc., claim he was born at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. His sister Mary claimed he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. There is no record of either the birth or the mother having attended those hospitals.
Even that is not the main objection, in the light of Harvard’s stance. The main objections to Obama are the form of the certificate, whether he was a citizen of another land at the time and whether he was, in his actions, of criminal status, not whether his mother was natural born or not.
Clause 46 of the Berg petition on Obama stated:
Since Obama’s birth was legally acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which the evidence supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears the status as an Indonesia natural child (natural-born).
For this reason, Obama would have been required to file applications with the U. S. State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then Obama is an illegal alien.
Clauses 48 and 49 stated:
The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship. In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, neither did the United States, Hague Convention of 1930.
Hawaii happens to issue birth certificates for babies born outside Hawaii. The Hawaiian law on that states:
“Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”
One last problem in this matter, a legal opinion:
December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986
If, at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship.
The changes by SCOTUS before and since 2008, for obvious reasons, are up for Constitutional challenge but the bottom line is, in practical terms, if Obama’s tenuous citizenship is accepted, then ipso facto, Cruz’s must also be.
Or both are rejected.