Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Uncle Sham

You dwell on the word “citizens,” and you argue the law means a child born abroad of two American citizens is a natural born citizen. You would be correct if the law read CHILD of American citizens (meaning a CHILD born abroad of two American citizens is a natural-born citizens.

The law clearly states CHILDREN of CITIZENS, both plurals, but that can only be read as a CHILD of a CITIZEN if there was only one child born of the union of the father and mother. In which case, only one parent need be an American citizen to have that CHILD a natural-born citizen.


7 posted on 01/06/2016 4:48:53 PM PST by ought-six (Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: ought-six
Actually, I dwell on the term "natural born citizen" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 being CHANGED to "citizen" when it was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795.

Cruz claims that his condition is covered by the Naturalization Act of 1790 yet doesn't mention the fact that his condition is actually covered by the Act which repealed it in 1795.

The term "citizens" as I argue it is correct as any application of this Act would have been. applied on an individual case basis.

8 posted on 01/06/2016 4:59:05 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: ought-six

I am a Cruz fan, but I believe that this question should be answered by the courts before the General election. Ted Cruz should put this behind him before it gets a chance to become a major distraction.

If you will recall... it was people supporting Hillary’s campaign that brought it up with Obama to begin with. Only a fool would not believe that there is going to be a major double standard by the media with how they will handle this as compared to Obama. Cruz has been up front about all of this, but we must remember all of the effort Obama went to convince the electorate that he was born in Hawaii. If Obama’s people didn’t feel it was important... why was so much effort put into convincing us that he was not born abroad?


9 posted on 01/06/2016 5:03:10 PM PST by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: ought-six
The law clearly states CHILDREN of CITIZENS,

Why did you chop off the second preposition in the phrase?

The complete phrase is "children of citizens of the United States".

The "citizens of the US" are all the citizens in the US.

Children of the citizens of the US, are all children of all citizens of the US.

17 posted on 01/06/2016 5:33:01 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: ought-six

The law clearly states CHILDREN of CITIZENS, both plurals, but that can only be read as a CHILD of a CITIZEN if there was only one child born of the union of the father and mother. In which case, only one parent need be an American citizen to have that CHILD a natural-born citizen.

Weasel. Words...Please provide the appropriate link to the above..thanks.


46 posted on 01/09/2016 10:25:21 AM PST by AFret.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson