Many so-called “birthers” questioned whether Barack Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen as the Constitution requires for Presidential eligibility. Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. Hawaii became a state on August 21, 1959. Barack Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen. End of conversation. (In contrast, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona 3 years before it became a state. Nobody questioned his right to run for president in 1964. Maybe someone would have done so had he won …, but I doubt it.)
Even if Barack Obama had not been born in the U.S., most agree that he is a “natural born” citizen because his mother was a natural born U.S. citizen.
Ted Cruz is in a similar situation. Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He, too, is a “natural born” citizen because his mother was a natural born U.S. citizen. (His father was born in Matanzas, Cuba and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005.)
So far, we haven’t heard much from the “birthers” regarding Cruz’ Presidential eligibility. I wonder why. Does one natural born parent and one naturalized parent trump one natural born parent and birth in a state that is relatively new when one is born there? Are the vast majority of birthers Republicans? Is half White and half Hispanic better than half White and half Black? Is it just too early in the 2016 Presidential campaign?
Oh well … one of the most famous and outspoken birthers is now running against Cruz (and a lot of others) for the Republican nomination for President. Maybe he’ll have something to say about Cruz’ citizenship and eligibility. I’ve heard that he’s had a lot to say about others of Hispanic ancestry already.