Posted on 02/09/2016 6:01:09 AM PST by zek157
Seriously LOL
I've never seen supporters of a candidate here on FR so totally accept unconstitutionality and lawlessness to justify their support for their candidate. Usually, FR people would rise above that if their candidate is found wrong or illegal. No more. I attribute it to the young people who've arrived on FR in recent years from our education system and cultural rot. Anything goes.
It's kind of old-fashioned, but I think the idea is that if you are here as a child, leave before 14 and get impregnated by a foreigner in a foreign land, perhaps your commitment to junior's US citizenship isn't that much.
Understood. But what was 5 years, before, is 2 years, now. And the total residence time used to be ten years, now it is five.
I do accept that congress can naturalize as it sees fit. That's a political issue. What boggles my mind is that people somehow distinguish this as being NBC, and holding that a person who declares an intention to be US and waits, etc. is not qualified for the presidency.
You can naturalize as an American citizen and still retain your British citizenship. They are not mutually exclusive.
It would seem so, if that’s what Frazier meant. It could also mean she added him to her passport, so she could travel back to Delaware to see her parents.
All I can say it what I know about the FS-240, and what’s stated on the State Departments web site. It would stand to reason that the documents required to obtain a FS-240, and a FS-240 to obtain a US passport, those documents would be sufficant to obtain a US passport without the FS-240
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html
What happens if the passport is lost, or expires I wonder? And could she have simply added him to hers, in place of a CRBA or his own passport? These things I wonder about. But it doesn’t say anywhere to simply add a child - it says CRBA and passport or just apply for the passport without the CRBA, which requires the same documentation.
So, if he had his own passport, but no CRBA, as a little child, for example, and that got lost along the way, then his mother would have to go through the whole process all over again - because that passport would have been his only “proof” of US citizenship.
Would him being on HER passport be considered as the same “proof of citizenship” as if he had his own? I think it probably wouldn’t be, and she would still have to provide all her documentations and his in order to have him added.
Anyway, the claim is that she went to the consulate, and that he got a passport when he was a teen. Did she go when he was a teen, or when he was a baby? Lots of questions.
“I’ve never seen supporters of a candidate here on FR so totally accept unconstitutionality and lawlessness to justify their support for their candidate. Usually, FR people would rise above that if their candidate is found wrong or illegal. No more. I attribute it to the young people who’ve arrived on FR in recent years from our education system and cultural rot. Anything goes.”
I agree. It’s OK, he’s our bastard doesn’t cut it.
Yor view represents a simple minded amalgam of Vattel and Blacstone that is intellectually unsustainable. I will post again longer explanation in a few days when my computer is up and running again.
Cruz is without any doubt an NBC.
Perhaps I should offended by that but it does underscore the weakness of your argument; you should have left it at "simple".
As opposed to understanding the context and reason for the term NBC, you seem to suggest that one needs to perform all manner of intellectual gyrations to arrive at what the founders intended.
Again, the USSC quickly confirmed there was no question NBC meant born within of two citizen parents and it pointed out that any other configuration had not yet been tested.
What relevant evidence can you point to, other than the musing and opinions of others from other cultures, of what the founders had in mind in this specific instance?
Cruz is without any doubt an NBC.
By your reasoning, shortly after the revolution the founders would have approved of one born in England to an English parent to serve as CIC of our nation's armed forces.
I submit that is so absurd as to be inconceivable.
It would literally take seconds to clear this up.
Which is precisely why not taking those few seconds to do so raises eyebrows. It's really no different than Obama's refusal to respond to innocuous early inquiries about his origins and qualifications.
The difference, of course, is that Obama was (and still is) protected. Can Cruz claim the same sort of protection or will a shopped Federal judge and a gleeful media derail his candidacy at some point of the DNC's choosing? That was the whole point of Trump bringing up this question. His stock-in-trade has been to point out the elephants in the room that nobody else wants to talk about.
Cruz clearly doesn't want to clear this up or he already would have, and hand waves are unlikely to suffice once the stakes (for the opposition) grow high enough.
You are putting words in my mouth that I would never even think, let alone say. Doing so you do me a real disservice because you mislead others who may not know the facts. Sorry about the “simple minded” remark, I did not have you or any specific person in mind, only a desire to criticeze the amalgamation of notion from English common law with Vattel.
I plane to write on this subject once I get my computer set up again. Can’t type a log piece on a tablet, it’s a real pita.
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.