I have no interest either way in Ted Cruz’s chances to become president. However, reading the pros and cons of opinions about his status of eligibility are of interest to me, as I had a personal experience that may or may not be outdated by a change in legalities since 1954.
Then, after the birth of my son in Germany, I had a chance to explore this matter. My American husband and I (not yet a citizen) visited the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany, and received the following information:
A child of an American (native born) citizen, born in a foreign country, is eligible to become president IF the parent is, at that time stationed there, under orders by the American Armed Forces or employed by another branch of the U.S. government, such as diplomatic service or trade missions, etc.
This was told to us personally by the then-Consul General Francis X. Waterman in 1954.
I remember this well because my Air Force husband was amused at my anxiety to be sure that my son was a “real” American. My next two children were born in the Westover AFB hospital. Watching the current spectacle I am relieved that neither has shown the slightest interest in a political career.
Perhaps the law has changed. I would not be surprised at a time when it is legal to allow American citizens to swear allegiance or naturalized immigrants to retain allegiance to another “… government, prince or potentate (which is part of the citizenship oath).”
I have asked several federal Justice Department employees to explain this to me without receiving a clear answer. I believe there is none.
RENA JACQUES
Greenfield