Posted on 02/10/2016 6:32:24 AM PST by smoothsailing
Phyllis Schlafly documented all of it in her study, How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party
When historians write about the decline and fall of the United States, they will point to the 1965 Immigration Act that caused it.
And I stated that the matter has never been litigated and should be. It is not settled law despite Cruz's contention to the contrary.
The reason I asked about circumstances was because you said your child was a natural born citizen and not a naturalized citizen, while stating your child was born overseas. There is of course a difference between the naturalized citizens at birth, and natural born citizens.
You must have me confused with someone else. I never said my child was unequivocally a nature born citizen as it applies to being eligible to be President under the Constitution. I believe she is under my circumstances being an accredited diplomat stationed overseas born to two Amcit parents. But the matter has never been litigated in the courts. It should be.
Just as "anchor" babies are citizens at birth, they are not natural born citizens. Some here seem to think they also qualify as citizens who when they obtain the age of 35 are eligible to become the President.
It is not settled law. It needs to be litigated. We have 300,000 anchor babies born annually. If you look at the Laurence Tribe/Ted Olson opinion that was commissioned by the Senate in 2008 to determine if McCain was eligible, you will see that they believe birthright citizenship, i.e., jus solis, is NBC. McCain - Opinion of Laurence H. Tribe and Theodore B. Olson
Tribe/Olson also gratuitously offered the opinion that Obama was a NBC because he was born in Hawaii. FWIW: Obama's mother could not have transmitted citizenship to Obama due to the regulations at the time re her age and other factors if Obama had indeed been born overseas.
I am a retired FSO who held a consular commission. I also had a child born abroad while being posted at an Embassy. The applicable FAM reference is 7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by "Naturalization".
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to tell me, and instead interpreted as you refuting my claim that Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen.
At any rate it is quite obvious why Laurence Tribe would claim McCain is a natural born citizen. Anything else meant he would have to admit that Obama was not a NBC as well.
It may not be settled, however, any ruling other than ruling a natural born citizen is anything other than a child born within the territorial borders of America to citizen parents is an act of subversion rising to the level of treason. Unless people on this board start realizing this fact they are aiding in the destruction of this country. And for what? Because they believe Ted Cruz is a conservative that will deliver them back their country? No proof whatsoever exists to support that belief. Ted has talked a good game, but has delivered nothing that I can point to.
...any ruling other than ruling a natural born citizen is anything other than a child born within the territorial borders of America to citizen parents is an act of subversion rising to the level of treason...
That needs to be repeated, over and over again.
Love that graphic.
Actually a lot over the top.
I am refuting your claim that Cruz is a naturalized citizen. The 7 FAM reference I provided clearly states that he is not a naturalized citizen.
At any rate it is quite obvious why Laurence Tribe would claim McCain is a natural born citizen. Anything else meant he would have to admit that Obama was not a NBC as well.
It was a joint opinion by Tribe and Olson. Again, none of this is settled law. In the 7 FAM reference I provided to you, 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency clearly states:
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that âNo Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.â
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The âAct to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalizationâ, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, â...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.â
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
It may not be settled, however, any ruling other than ruling a natural born citizen is anything other than a child born within the territorial borders of America to citizen parents is an act of subversion rising to the level of treason. Unless people on this board start realizing this fact they are aiding in the destruction of this country.
It needs to be litigated. You are entitled to your opinion of what is or is not "treason," but we need a ruling from SCOTUS to clear this up once and for all. Cruz has standing and should seek a court ruling otherwise we will have another case of a person with questionable eligibility for the Presidency. The failure to properly vet Obama has set an unfortunate precedent. Many of the same people who questioned Obama's eligibility are turning a blind eye in the case of Cruz or for that matter, Rubio and Jindal who were born on US soil but not to US citizen parents.
I want a ruling period. I will accept whatever is decided. We can in the meantime, get rid of birthright citizenship, which would certainly solve any future problem with the children of illegal aliens.
What is over the top? Be specific.
Grab it and put it to good use!!! 8^)
Almost every point you make some of which are unavoidable. The ‘browning’ of Ameeica is going to happen. You have no way of knowing if the economy will be better under Cruz or Trump no matter how they frame it. I believe all the candidates no ‘get’ border security. And the 12 million all ready here we be treated basically the same way. Things are tough yes but can be turned around. I will take my chances with any of them.
What ones are/were unavoidable?
The âbrowningâ of America is going to happen.
Our immigration policies are what made it happen. Since 1990 we have brought in 35 million legal permanent immigrants, 87% of whom are minorities as defined by the USG. We are being colonized by the Third World. Do we really need 1.1 million legal immigrants a year at a time when we have the lowest labor participation rates in 38 years? Do you think it has any connection to the 94 million out of the workforce or that wages are declining and have been for four decades? We have a surplus of labor.
In 1970 one out of 21 was foreign born in this country; today it is less than one in 8, the highest it has been in 105 years; and within a decade it will be one in 7, the highest in our history. We had 9.7 million foreign born in 1970 and today there are 42.4 million. We have had the two highest decades of immigration in our history. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities, and by 2043 non-Hispanic whites will be 50% of the population compared to 89% in 1970.
Immigrants and minorities vote more than two to one Dem. They favor Big Government and more services. Immigrants use welfare to a greater extent the native born. They are tearing apart our social safety net and increasing the costs to the taxpayers.
Immigrants are taking American jobs and depressing wages.
believe all the candidates no âgetâ border security. And the 12 million all ready here we be treated basically the same way. Things are tough yes but can be turned around. I will take my chances with any of them.
You obviously still don't get it on immigration. I am talking about LEGAL IMMIGRATION. We continue to admit 1.1 million legal permanent immigrants a year along with 640,000 guest workers annually. Unless we drastically reduce legal immigration, the Dems will be the permanent majority party and the country will be destroyed economically. Demography is destiny.
Only one candidate has proposed reducing legal immigration. That is Donald Trump.
Nice stats, still going to happen with or without immigration. Do you have a problem with race? I get the illegal immigration problem and I am dead set against Amnesty. I do believe there will be little difference how each of the Republicans govern. Trump and Cruz just got religion on this to win an election. I hope I am wrong but I don’t think so.
What's going to happen with or without immigration? Demographic changes? Use of welfare? The Dems becoming the permanent majority party? The end of conservatism?
Do you have a problem with race?
No, do you? The political power base of the GOP is non-Hispanic whites, which voted 59-39 for Romney. Blacks voted 93$ for Obama along with 73% of Asians and 71% of Hispanics. We have entered the era of tribal politics and anyone discounting the importance of race in the electoral process is delusional. Dem strategists like Ruy Teixeira have said that changing the demography of the country is an electoral strategy that will transform America and make the Dems the permanent majority party. The 1965 Immigration Act changed where we get most of our immigrants from. The idea is to make America look like the rest of the world.
The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster
We are importing hundreds of thousands of future Dem voters every year. Why are the Dems so in favor of amnesty and increased immigration? Do you thing if immigrants were voting more than two to one Rep, they would sit idly by and let it happen. Phyllis Schlafly wrote a study two years ago, How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party You should read it.
I get the illegal immigration problem and I am dead set against Amnesty. I do believe there will be little difference how each of the Republicans govern. Trump and Cruz just got religion on this to win an election. I hope I am wrong but I donât think so.
How do you define amnesty? My definition is any legislation that allows the lawbreakers to stay and work here is amnesty. Citizenship is just the cherry on top.
The political class has lied about what it would do to stop illegal immigration. I trust Trump more than Cruz to actually do something about it. FYI: Securing the border only solves part of the problem. 40% of the illegals came here legally and overstayed their visas.
Immigration, legal and illegal, has had and will continue to have a major and far-reaching impact across a broad spectrum of existential challenges that confront this nation, e.g., national security, the economy/global competitiveness, jobs, health care, taxes, energy independence, education, entitlement reform, law enforcement, social welfare programs, physical infrastructure, the environment, civil liberties, and a continued sense of national identity/shared sense of endeavor. Immigration is the defining issue of our time with enormous implications for the future of this nation and the preservation of our patrimony. Yet, seldom will you hear immigration mentioned by our political and intellectual elites in connection with solutions to these challenges
You are way better informed than I am on this man. Look I agree about Trump taking this much more serious than Cruz. He is a Politician that really will do anything to get elected or even re-elected. I am not a Trump fan, so it is hard to know what to do really. I don’t trust any of them really. We have the same view of Amnesty. Enforcing our laws and making it virtually impossible to work here illegally will help, but many will still not go home and continue to have babies.
Legal immigration is a far bigger problem than illegal aliens. We could remove all the illegals tomorrow, but unless we reduce legal immigration the country as we know it is finished along with conservatism and the Constitution.
So do you have a candidate in this fight?
Cruz is the most intelligent, articulate candidate of either party, but he lacks the interpersonal skills to be effective. And I don't think he is electable in the General election. He won't be able to make the same personal and emotional connection with the voters that Trump can. Nor is Cruz willing to get down in the mud and the blood and the beer to win against the Democrats. Trump is the street fighter who will.
You might be right. I agree about Cruz. Trump seems like a time bomb to me.
I am sure the GOPe considers him a time bomb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.