Posted on 02/04/2016 5:20:20 PM PST by conservativejoy
The Iowa caucus results left me with some dark thoughts. While Ted Cruz won, second-place Donald Trump and third-place Marco Rubio are clearly the media's two favorite candidates, albeit in very different ways.
Trump and Rubio. Just what the Republican Party needs: a choice between insulting Muslims at home and using military force against them abroad.
This may be the most powerful case for conservatives to support Cruz: At least he would save us from Rubio and Trump.
Hyperbolic, I know, especially since I do agree that assimilation has been a challenge in Western countries that have accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants, and that there is a legitimate military component to the war on terrorism. But Trump's blunderbuss approach to Muslim immigration and Rubio's force-friendly foreign policy are overreactions at best and entirely counterproductive at worst. They are also illustrative of the dilemma a Trump-Rubio race for the GOP nomination would pose, and why Cruz may well be our best option.
I know that on the surface, there is a lot to like about Rubio's candidacy. The freshman senator from Florida seems like a nice guy and his supporters are generally nice too. Moreover, as a relatively young Latino candidate, Rubio presents a fresh face for a party in which too many Americans feel unwelcome. While Trump's appeal to struggling working-class whites and disaffected Republicans who believe their party leaders ignore them is important, he also clearly compounds some of the GOP's problems reaching out beyond its traditional demographic core. The billionaire does one form of outreach at the expense of the other.
Rubio is different. In his person and campaign pitch, he offers voters something new. That's especially important in a campaign where the Republican nominee is likely to face an older Democratic nominee who is a throwback to the 1990s and is already experiencing problems recreating the Obama coalition, especially its appeal to younger Democrats. (The alternative, who is appealing to those younger Democrats, is a septuagenarian socialist.)
Yet for all Rubio's exhortations for eschewing the politics of yesterday, he doesn't seem to have learned many lessons from George W. Bush's presidency. Yes, he is tougher on domestic spending, though one worries that what his entitlement reforms will save his military adventurism will wind up spending. And he has admirably partnered with Mike Lee on some interesting legislative initiatives. But on big questions like war and immigration, he sounds like Bush 2.0. His campaign announcement knocked Democratic decrepitude but contained few policy prescriptions that would have been out of place in a conservative politician's speech in the 1980's.
And what of Trump? He is not only a blowhard and a bit of an arrogant jerk, but his campaign has attracted some real nasty pieces of work to boot. Yes, there are well-meaning Trump enthusiasts. And as someone who voted for Ron Paul twice I understand the peril of judging a candidate or political movement by its most unhinged internet followers. But as Trump's favorite book tells us, by their fruits ye shall know them (Matthew, not Two Corinthians).
Trump does seem to understand that the Bush way of dealing with the Middle East and the American homeland, especially as it pertains to Iraq and immigration, went horribly wrong. And while some of his alternatives may be equally flawed in the opposite direction, it does add some needed perspective to the conservative movement's consternation about Trump's pre-Iowa poll numbers. Indeed, while I agree with virtually every word of National Review's anti-Trump symposium, it's hard to suppress the sense that conservatives who mostly thought the Bush administration was wonderful are getting a taste of the dismay I felt during those years.
"Where was this unified conservative outrage over the bank bailout in 2008?" asked the columnist Charlie Hurt. "Where is the unified conservative outrage over launching a trillion-plus dollar war paid for with nothing but debt, where is the outrage over Republican politicians who come along and supported amnesty?"
Where indeed. As it happens, Rubio was a bit better on that bank bailout than Trump. But on the other two issues? When Jeb Bush was getting beaten up for refusing to concede the Iraq war was a mistake, Rubio said he wouldn't have invaded knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction. But he's made more public statements suggesting he thinks withdrawing from Iraq was a bigger error than invading in the first place and he's been supportive of repeating the regime change experiment in Libya and Syria.
Similarly, Rubio has disavowed his Gang of Eight immigration plan, arguing that the threat of ISIS entering the United States has changed everything. But the immigration system's national security implications were evident long before he took his earlier position in 2013. And when he says we have been trying to solve our country's immigration problem for 30 years, he omits the fact that amnesty passed 30 years ago.
Neither Rubio nor Trump is the champion of true conservatives. Fortunately, there is a third top-tier candidate in the race, the one who actually won Iowa. I have my misgivings about him too, especially since we no longer have Rand Paul in the race to keep him honest on libertarian issues.
I'm not sure I will vote for him. But avoiding a Trump versus Rubio race is about as powerful a case for Cruz as I can imagine.
So is Trump.
“What part of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952? I presume it’s the latest version of the applicable law, right?”
The following is an extract of the relevant provision from the Public Law establishing the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which was the applicable statute when Ted Cruz was born on 22 December 1970.
66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952. TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization. NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH. Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . . (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
The U.S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual used to administer the naturalization law today says it is the authority for the “naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
The Supreme Court of the United States said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” Ted Cruz was born “out of the jurisdiction of the United States”, and he “can only become a citizen by being naturalized.” See:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
Not so it was Cruz who invited Roberts to be part of Bush recount and they were long time friends and Cruz referred to him as a mentor. It was only after Robert’s Obamacare opinion that Cruz disavowed Roberts. He supported him prior to that as you even admit. I still question who he would chose if elected. I wonder the same about Trump and Rubio. I just have more information on Cruz.
I doubt it.
I think Mike Luttig would still be a Cruz favorite for the court. One thing is for certain, they would be Conservative. I can’t say that about any of the other candidate’s likely choices.
This statement is very misleading. It give the impression that John Roberts was Ted Cruz's choice for the Supreme Court.
He was not.
Ted Cruz advocated for another possible nominee (I wish someone could provide me with the name as it has entirely escaped me).
It was only after President Bush selected John Roberts that Ted Cruz got on board and started the advocacy expected of him by his boss. Saying that Cruz 'pushed' Roberts suggests that he advocated Roberts to the President and he did not.
I agree completely. Fox is now all in on the Rubio Express.
The two laws you quoted seem to contradict each other - the first says he’s natural born because of his parentage, the second that he’s not because of his birth location.
Good call. As the folks in Florida can attest, Rubio campaigned on No Amnesty. He hadn’t even unpacked his bags in Washington before he was huddled up with the Democrats and a few RINOs on the Gang of 8 Bill. Anyone voting for him is begging to get burned.
McConnell is expected to bring TPP to a vote in June. From now til then it is in limbo per the Constitution. But what the executive branch will do in implementing what has not yet been presented to Congress....who knows.
Cruz had two picks for the SC. Mike Luttig was his first choice.
“The two laws you quoted seem to contradict each other - the first says he’s natural born because of his parentage, the second that he’s not because of his birth location.”
No, the statue is a naturalization law. The Congress has no enumerated Constitutional power to make anyone a natural born citizen. The Congress has only the power to make an alien born person a naturalized citizen. Ted Cruz was alien born in the foreign jurisdiction of Canada and naturalized at birth as a U.S. citizen by the authority of the statute, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Before the enactment of the Cable Act of 1922, Ted Cruz was alien born and remained only alien born, because there was no naturalization law that recognized the ability of the mother to transmit her citizenship to her child. The Supreme Court statement acknowledges the fact that a child born outside the jurisdiction is alien born and can acquire U.S. citizenship only by naturalization at birth or by naturalization after birth. Either way, it is still naturalization of an alien born child, with or without one or two U.S. citizen parents.
It was a mistake. I’m a Cruz supporter!
LOL.
“Rubio is a Trojan Horse.”
Rubio has nowhere to go as he gave up his Senate seat so he is desperate.
I saw one thread that he will eventually switch over to Democrats to become their nominee once they get over their hell having their top two 70+ year old candidates, one being a proud communist and the other likely ending up in prison.
Dems will flock to a young, energetic, smooth-talking Hispanic who loves amnesty.
read post 56
“I presume it’s the latest version of the applicable law, right?”
The applicable law regarding the eligibility is contained in the US Constitution. There are interpretations of the Constitution is what he means.
Okay, there's the crux, think about it. A naturalization law cannot recognize a mother's power to transmit anything, because it doesn't acknowledge any power except the government's. Whereas natural born, not naturalized, means, literally, inherited biologically and outside of government grant, which of course would be from the mother. So it seems natural born would be, in fact, transmitted from the mother regardless of the location, and never granted by naturalization law, because naturalization law simply does not have jurisdiction over natural born status.
:)
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.