5 ms·

Elon is not a natural born citizen of the US (He's South African), he is ineligible for the presidency.

by kec 8y ago

bdamm 8y ago
Didn't stop Ted Cruz from running, did it?
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  He fits the legal definition of natural born citizen.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    are IVF children disqualified? Legal citation on the natural born question, please.
    - astura 8y ago
      The Constitution doesn't define "natural born citizen" but the majority of scholars take it to mean "citizen by virtue of birth" rather than "citizen by virtue of naturalization." I have no idea why you're talking about IVF children, they aren't legally different from naturally conceived children.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      He is a citizen by birth, not through naturalization. IVF is irrelevant if the biological parents are known and in a relationship, or if the birth is inside the U.S. In particular you cannot gain citizenship through donated sperm, though.
    - simcop2387 8y ago
      This is "natural" in a legal context not a biological context. What this generally amounts to meaning is that you met the requirements of being a citizen when you were born. This doesn't specify a method of birth (cesarean or otherwise), but instead that you're either born to existing citizen parents, on us soil, or on otherwise recognized us territory (Puerto Rico, military bases, embassy grounds in a foreign country I think also can count) and I believe I've heard that an exception to this is that you're not being born to diplomats on official foreign government business, because not all countries recognize dual citizenship and forcefully giving the newborn US citizenship could cause diplomatic issues with the other country.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ghaff 8y ago
  Natural born citizen is not unambiguously defined. However, the common interpretation is citizen from birth, which Cruz was by virtue of having a mother who was a US citizen.
  - baddox 8y ago
    The clause in the US Constitution is brief and potentially ambiguous, but there has been no shortage of lawsuits about presidential eligibility and the legal definition in practice seems to be quite unambiguous. For example, regarding Ted Cruz: > Two November 2015 ballot challenges in New Hampshire alleging that Cruz was not a natural-born citizen were unsuccessful. In December, a similar lawsuit was filed in Vermont, and an unsuccessful lawsuit was filed in Florida. In January 2016, similar lawsuits were unsuccessfully filed in Texas and Utah, and two similar unsuccessful ballot challenges were filed in Illinois. In February, two similar unsuccessful lawsuits were filed in Pennsylvania and one was filed in Arkansas; a similar lawsuit was filed in Alabama; similar unsuccessful ballot challenges were filed in Indiana; and similar ballot challenges and an unsuccessful similar lawsuit were also filed in New York. In March, a similar lawsuit was filed in New York. In April, a similar ballot challenge was unsuccessfully filed in New Jersey. > No lawsuit or challenge has been successful, and in February 2016, the Illinois Board of Elections ruled in Cruz's favor, stating, "The candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Ted_Cruz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Te...
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Which is, frankly, the sensible definition. People would and should rightly look askance at a court decision that found some obscure legal precedent to come to a different decision rather than just letting the voters decide. The question may make for interesting law review articles but there's pretty much zero practical justification for a more stringent definition. (Especially given that even the citizen from birth requirement is arguably something of an anachronism.)

Elon is not a natural born citizen of the US (He's South African), he is ineligible for the presidency.

by kec 8y ago

Elon is not a natural born citizen of the US (He's South African), he is ineligible for the presidency.

bdamm 8y ago

Didn't stop Ted Cruz from running, did it?

rootusrootus 8y ago
He fits the legal definition of natural born citizen.
- dnautics 8y ago
  are IVF children disqualified? Legal citation on the natural born question, please.
  - astura 8y ago
    The Constitution doesn't define "natural born citizen" but the majority of scholars take it to mean "citizen by virtue of birth" rather than "citizen by virtue of naturalization." I have no idea why you're talking about IVF children, they aren't legally different from naturally conceived children.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    He is a citizen by birth, not through naturalization. IVF is irrelevant if the biological parents are known and in a relationship, or if the birth is inside the U.S. In particular you cannot gain citizenship through donated sperm, though.
  - simcop2387 8y ago
    This is "natural" in a legal context not a biological context. What this generally amounts to meaning is that you met the requirements of being a citizen when you were born. This doesn't specify a method of birth (cesarean or otherwise), but instead that you're either born to existing citizen parents, on us soil, or on otherwise recognized us territory (Puerto Rico, military bases, embassy grounds in a foreign country I think also can count) and I believe I've heard that an exception to this is that you're not being born to diplomats on official foreign government business, because not all countries recognize dual citizenship and forcefully giving the newborn US citizenship could cause diplomatic issues with the other country.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 8y ago
Natural born citizen is not unambiguously defined. However, the common interpretation is citizen from birth, which Cruz was by virtue of having a mother who was a US citizen.
- baddox 8y ago
  The clause in the US Constitution is brief and potentially ambiguous, but there has been no shortage of lawsuits about presidential eligibility and the legal definition in practice seems to be quite unambiguous. For example, regarding Ted Cruz: > Two November 2015 ballot challenges in New Hampshire alleging that Cruz was not a natural-born citizen were unsuccessful. In December, a similar lawsuit was filed in Vermont, and an unsuccessful lawsuit was filed in Florida. In January 2016, similar lawsuits were unsuccessfully filed in Texas and Utah, and two similar unsuccessful ballot challenges were filed in Illinois. In February, two similar unsuccessful lawsuits were filed in Pennsylvania and one was filed in Arkansas; a similar lawsuit was filed in Alabama; similar unsuccessful ballot challenges were filed in Indiana; and similar ballot challenges and an unsuccessful similar lawsuit were also filed in New York. In March, a similar lawsuit was filed in New York. In April, a similar ballot challenge was unsuccessfully filed in New Jersey. > No lawsuit or challenge has been successful, and in February 2016, the Illinois Board of Elections ruled in Cruz's favor, stating, "The candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Ted_Cruz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Te...
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Which is, frankly, the sensible definition. People would and should rightly look askance at a court decision that found some obscure legal precedent to come to a different decision rather than just letting the voters decide. The question may make for interesting law review articles but there's pretty much zero practical justification for a more stringent definition. (Especially given that even the citizen from birth requirement is arguably something of an anachronism.)