Posted on 01/20/2016 8:03:53 PM PST by Jeff Chandler
The author has his facts all wrong.
Well it’s ignorant and foolish to say it is a non-issue. It is an issue. It has never been resolved.
Now while I have made it clear of my intense dislike for Cruz, I do think he is eligible ASSUMING one of his parents was an American citizen when he was born.
And I see that all of you RABID Cruz supporters are now posting the same specious, slanderous tripe.
...any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application...the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or 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
How can the New Terrapin Gazette say this act would make Cruz a natural born citizen? The act seems unclear. It is saying that the father must have been a U.S. resident but seems to imply that residency may have lead to U.S. citizenry. But it seems unclear. If the father is required to be a U.S. citizen for their foreign-born child to be a natural born citizen, then that leaves Cruz out.
Was this act ever repealed or replaced? Since it was passed two years after the Constitution was ratified, it is persuasive as to original understanding of the term "natural born citizen" as far as it goes, but it is unclear about the status of the father other than U.S. residency.
Please repost, on this thread, what you posted to the other thread.
NO....BOTH PARENTS HAVE TO BE AMERICAN CITIZENS !
Tired of explaining.
This is actually a political competition, I heard. Have you heard that? They say that typically, one candidate will vet the other. Have you heard that one?
Better now than never to discuss the fact that constitutional scholars, for decades, have declared this natural born citizenship business as an open question.
It hinges on the differences between those who believe the Constitution is a “living document” and those who believe it is only as written, or the original meaning at the time.
These two clash and have for some time.
“Natural” born had less to do with the birth right of the mother, as it did to “ties to the land”, as in “nature”.
This is the premise used by the contenders against the willy nilly bestowing of “natural born” title onto those born who were nowhere near the land, or shores, of the country, who had no literal ties to the land. Naturalization was the option for these birth babies, but not “natural” born status.
Yes Trump is keeping this in the news but here’s my question. If Ted argued before the Supreme Court, if he’s the smartest guy in the room, why is everyone else talking about this but him. He could dominate the conversation with established law and precedent but he’s stayed relatively quiet.
Could just be advisors telling him not to humor Trump but its something I wonder about.
Trump and I agree with you, we don’t care either, but have no intention of saying so, until we get out of weird Iowa. Ha!
Hell, Why don’t we just make the choosing a President like jury duty.
“You have been selected to be on phone alert to serve as President of the United States of America, Monday through Friday, Feb 1 - 5, 2016; from 9am to 5pm. Please plan to arrive within 30 minutes of being alerted.
Please place this card on your cars dashboard to provide free parking in the White House lot.” ;-)
Yep. Totally understand.
> “1790 Immigration Act”
The article begins with a lie.
There is a citizenship section in the naturalization study guide, for naturalization applicants, on google.
There is a search engine inside the study guide to find the section on citizenship. I can not post the link, but it was easy to find googling “USA naturalization study guide”.
The conditions are there all right, but the title over the definitions uses the term, “generally”.
That alone tells all of us that this is not SETTLED law.
Well, ......except for...... libbylu.
LOL!
And who is this dimwit who rests his declaration on the 1790 act which was repealed in 1795? A total crackpot to be sure!
The opposition, the Republicans or Rinos as many say or eunuchs as I say did not object. Given the same circumstances, the Democrats would have screamed Holy Hell. That is why I am not a Republican.
Seriously, I have forgotten what Cruz claims to be. Is it “natural born”, or “naturalized”?
I just looked all that up but was too tired to digest it.
I presume the naturalized may not serve as president.
And like it or not ( frankly my dears, I don't give a damn !) that section says EXACTLY what I have been posting, re NBC, over and over, and over, and OVER again. So read it and weep...all you nay sayers!
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.