The hullabaloo over Ted Cruz’s citizenship is interesting on a number of levels but the one that interests me the most is the one that is discussed the least:  “natural” versus “native” born.  I poo-pooed the matter of parental citizenship prior to this, but upon a rethink & more reading, I realize I was wrong;  not only as it relates to Cruz but to Obama, in combination with, the more obvious matter of WHERE one is born. They BOTH matter.

Everyone agrees that if you are born on American soil, even if it is “declared” American soil, like an embassy or military base (i.e. John McCain), no matter what nationality either/both parents are,  you are a citizen.  You are at the very least a “native” born citizen but that is no guarantee that you are a “natural” born citizen, which is what the Constitution requires of our President.  This is a CRITICAL distinction and just blown past in most of the media discussion about this issue.

For instance, John McCain, even though he was born outside the U.S. (I forget where, but it was a military base, and officially American soil – Panama Canal?) was born of two American citizen parents on American soil; therefore John McCain qualifies as a “natural” born citizen eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States.

McCain’s provenance comports with what we know from the Federalist papers and one SCOTUS decision that “natural” born citizen means that you are born not only on American soil but, and this is important, you must also have American parents – two of them, on American soil, at the time of your birth, i.e., no duality of citizenship.  This was the clear message of the founders who, at the time, were understandably concerned about divided loyalties (in their case to the Crown);  but more broadly, and for posterity, to any entity other than The United States of America.

Now, obviously, there had to be a “grandfathering” in of this for our Founding Fathers, as the Republic, as formed under the constitution drafted by their hand, didn’t exist before they drafted it!  But their intent was clear: NO DIVIDED LOYALTIES. PERIOD.

Thus we have distinctions we commonly recognize:  “naturalized” citizen, “natural-born” citizen, and “native-born” citizen.  They are different.  They are so-called for a reason:  they each of have profound differences for a REASON, thus the different names.

As much as I love Ted Cruz, I believe a very serious argument could be made that he is NOT eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.  I LOVE the guy, but I wonder – very seriously wonder about his eligibility.  I’m not even sure which of the “n’s” he is, given the fact that his father was Cuban, and he was born in Canada of an American mother.  At our founding, citizenship was conferred by the father, so there is a possibility that, as it has yet to be clearly adjudicated by SCOTUS, that he could have TRIPLE citizenship which is two more than a “natural” born President is allowed.

I just don’t see how he could be eligible, but I’m willing to be convinced.  He’s born in Canada, a part of the United Kingdom for crying out loud; we blew that clambake, remember?  How can we have a President born of the Crown of all things?

It seems to me “natural” born means two American parents on American soil, but I’ll leave it to people way, waaaay smarter than me to argue otherwise.

BTW:  My previous writings on Mr. Obama’s difficulties with provenance can be found here for starters, but if you click on “birth certificate” in the tags, there are about a dozen total.  (For the record: I do not believe he was born in Kenya or any place other than the United States of America.  I do believe he was born in Hawaii but that doesn’t mean there aren’t significant problems with his documents.)  American Thinker (a website I heartily recommend and I read every day) has an excellent article on “natural” vs. “native” born including a discussion of the one relevant SCOTUS case, Minor v Happersett.