Posted on 01/19/2016 11:30:34 AM PST by Enlightened1
Ted Cruz's Amazing Stances on Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment from 2011 to 2015.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Some will figure it out some won't. Dig at Lawyers in general and their jaded wisdom.
I was amazed that The Mayor of New York City proposed to build masturbation stations on the side walks so those stressed out New Yorkers could take a stress break and avail them selves of a free porn loaded laptop and a curtained stall to gratify themselves at taxpayer expense. That story passed with nary a mention that I saw proving we are in much worse shape than we could have dreamed just a few short years ago.
Those who have currently placed themselves before the electorate are seriously flawed. They lack weight, they create no confidence in their ability to lead the nation. This is sad, we seem to have become bankrupt in producing real leaders. I did not like FDR but at least one respected him, same for “Ike.”
Agreed we are morally depraved and if this continues our nation shall soon die violently.
He goes on in that conservation to say closing the border is the way to stop anchor babies. He does not want them to have citizenship so close the border to stop it.
In the film it flips to, he says he is against citizenship for anchor babies and refers to that 2011 conversation film where he says close the border to stop the automatic citizenship of babies born here of illegals. If he had flipped on this, he would not have said he spoke about it in 2011.
The two films do not contradict each other but the way they have the film flipping, it is making people believe he changed.
Also, Cruz is NOT speaking of a person born outside the US to an American citizen (his citizenship). He is speaking about illegals having anchor babies born in this country.
For those of you jumping on this to discredit Cruz, you will stoop to anything you can to warp something so it looks like Cruz has flip flopped.
Well that’s fine if that all you need to form an opinion, but I already know your bias, so you opinion doesn’t carry much weight. I want to see the full interview for both years. We all know that people can twist things in print and video to support their point of view, it’s done everyday by the media. Post the full interviews!
Darukened1, you’re lying newbie troll trash.
I don’t have them, I don’t even know if they exist, ask the original poster or search you-tube. That’s what I would do.
Nice editing, taking snippets and not the whole message of either interview.
The reality... In 2011, Ted said he was against Birthright Citizenship but that it was protected by the 14th amendment and the best way to fight it was to stop illegal immigration at the border. In 2015, He’s still against it and still feels the Constitution protects it.
[From an NBC article Aug 19, 2015 by HALLIE JACKSON and CARRIE DANN
Cruz, in an interview on the Michael Medved radio show, made his position clear: “We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally.”
The presidential candidate acknowledged that a change in the law would be a heavy lift, saying “I think it is possible, but any constitutional amendment by its nature is difficult to achieve.”]
Typical of these threads throw some sh!t see if it sticks
Because you are the one claiming this is edited.
You need to back up your claim that a full video or transcript would change the perception of what is posted.
What does he really stand for? He’s for whatever gets him ahead. Stick a finger up and see which way the wind is blowing at the moment. He’s a lawyer and a politician so enough said.
The sticky part is the "under the jurisdiction of". That eliminates children of foreign nationals who have not sworn allegiance to America and thus retaining their foreign citizenship, their children would inherit the nationality of their father/parents at birth and be under the jurisdiction of that foreign nation.
Consider that the 1866 Civil Rights statute, enacted two years before the 14th Amendment and largely the work of Howard and Trumbull, began with this statement: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are citizens." That clearly excludes aliens. But that phrase was replaced with the more ambiguous "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the amendment. Why? Did the amendment mean something broader? It would seem so.
This clause represented Congress's reversal of a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". The 39th Congress proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause due to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act during floor debates in Congress.[1][2] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to entrench the principle in the Constitution in order to prevent its being struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress in other words to avoid disenfranchisement of the American Americans.[2][3]
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422894/birthright-citizenship-fourteenth-amendment-constitution-supreme-court
I’m sorry but I have to say your an idiot or willfully blind if you’re saying this wasn’t edited. Please explain to me how they took a video for 4 years and then somehow kept switching between 2011 and 2015 did they use a time machine? Was this the full Interview for 20111 and 2014? if not then it’s edited
Why are you accusing me? It’s not my thread. I responded to a poster’s statement by giving my take on what was said. If a person runs for office they can expect to be questioned on inconsistencies and held under a microscope. They all screw up sometimes. That doesn’t mean we give them a pass on screw ups but it does means we need to realize candidates are human and sometimes inconsistent and give in to the terrible pressures of running a campaign. Its part of judging how a candidate will behave in office under pressure.
HuH?
He is speaking specifically to individuals born IN THIS COUNTRY.
The older footage = you may not like it but the constitution says if you’re born on US soil you are a citizen.
The newer footage = he says he doesn’t like it either and we should end it.
The two positions are not really in opposition to each other.
Sorry fat fingers meant full Interview for 2011 and 2015
The fact that he had to renounce his Canadian citizenship simply shows the US and Canada have a dual-citizenship treaty and citizenship for both are conferred simultaneously at birth when a citizen of one with jus sanguinis is born in the other, thereby recieving jus soli there.
The fact you totally ignore this speaks volumes.
Very simple — the 14th amendment does NOT confer citizenship on the children of those here illegally.
I didn’t make a claim one way or the other.
Do I think it is edited? No I think it is a shortened version of an interview.
Do I think it would be possible to edit it in a way that shows Ted Cruz really didn’t say what he said about the 14th amendment?
No I do not.
Your “inner bully” is showing, just like your head bully, Trump. Sell it somewhere else, we’re all full up on crazy here.
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.