What If Donald Trump Doesn’t Sink the Republican Party?

National Review ^ | June 25, 2017 | DAVID HARSANYI

[E. Pluribus Unum]

He appears not to be as much of a problem as the Democrats hoped.

What if Republican voters who don’t particularly like President Donald Trump are also able to compartmentalize their votes? What if they dislike Democrats more than they do the president? What if, rather than being punished for Trump’s unpopularity, local candidates are rewarded for their moderation? This would be a disaster for Democrats. And Tuesday’s runoff election in Georgia’s Sixth District shows that it might be possible.

Now, had Jon Ossoff come out ahead of Karen Handel, the coverage would have painted this as a game-changing moment: a referendum on conservatism itself, a harbinger of a coming liberal wave, and a rejection of Trump’s disastrous presidency. It would have illustrated that Democrats had figured out how to flip those suburban and affluent Republicans who aren’t crazy about the president.

Perhaps some of that will still play out during the midterms, because one race (or even four) doesn’t tell us everything we need to know. Every district is unique. Still, there are definitely ominous signs for Democrats.

[JohnyBoy]

>Hate to break it to everyone but the Republican party was sunk until Donald Trump came along

Indeed. I was planning to vote for no one when it looked my choice was Jeb and Hillary. Heck the only reason I voted for my local GOP congressmen was because of Trump.

[Freedom56v2]

I see you bought into EVERY ONE of Trump’s LIES !
And there is very little hope for you, since your perception is through your POMPUS DEAR LEADER.

z”Ted Cruz ... was pro-immigration with H-1B visa expansion and not pushing for jobs.”

WRONG AGAIN, you, poor feeble-minded TRUMPSTER .
Source:

... Cruz even indicated he would back deporting those who came here illegally — another proposal he has usually rebuffed.

“I would enforce the law,” Cruz said, explaining that he would first deport criminals without proper papers.
“Federal immigration law provides that
if someone is here illegally and is apprehended,
that they should be sent back to their home country.”
Cruz has recently begun stressing that he believes the number of undocumented immigrants would decrease with strict border enforcement.
...

“The only people I’m under fire from are reporters who want to throw rocks,” Cruz said in Harlan.
“Once we’ve demonstrated that we can solve the problem, then we can have a conversation about what to do about whatever people remain illegally.”

The Rubio campaign ...
“He has attempted to muddy the waters,” Cruz said on the stage. “Where there was a battle over amnesty
and some chose, like Sen. Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer
and support a massive amnesty plan.Others chose to stand with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people
and secure the border.”

Let’s take a close look at what TED CRUZ said at that time about his amendment to the “Gang of Eight amnesty/ citizenship bill” :

Cruz In 2013 On Providing Legal Status To Illegal Immigrants ( 2:14 )
Published on Nov 12, 2015

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 5/21/2013:
“And I’d like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue
and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system
and, in particular, about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows.
If this amendment is adopted to the current bill, the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status.
They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR status as well so that they are out of the shadows,
which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as THEIR principal objective to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows.
This amendment would allow that happen, ...

“But what it would do, is it would REMOVE the pathway to citizenship, for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve,
And a second point to those advocates that are so passionately engaged,
In my view, if this committee rejects this amendment,
and I think everyone here views that it is quite likely that this committee will indeed reject this amendment,
In my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will FAIL in the House of Representatives.

I don’t want immigration reform to fail.
I want immigration reform to pass.
And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle,
if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that SECURES THE BORDERS, that improves LEGAL immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows;
then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromised to come together.
And this amendment,
I believe, if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically.”

The intent was TO EXPOSE the “ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS” AND THE DemocRATS for their dishonesty.
THEY were trying to LEGISLATE the ILLEGAL ALIENS a PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP.

TED CRUZ was trying to amend the Bill so as TO STOP THEM,

by REMOVING the pathway to citizenship,
for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.

TED CRUZ chose to stand with others like Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people, to secure the border.

---

I politely asked you to reconsider your thinking...

You have doubled down...How you are still here is beyond me, but you really need to stop with the #NEVERTRUMP rhetoric!

[Yosemitest]

I'm here for the FACTS and that's it.
But FACTS are something that you can't tolerate.
You can go and kiss the ring of YOUR DEAR LEADER, snowflake !

[Just mythoughts]

There are THREE parts to create a ‘natural born’ US citizen. BOTH parents must be US citizens and they birth their child on US soil..

You have no proof what Mrs. Cruz's citizenship status was when she birth Ted on Canadian soil. Daddy Cruz did not become a US citizen until 2005. Ted has two strikes against his fake claim that he is a ‘natural born’ US citizen. Ted is a natural born liar, and that skill was perfected at Harvard Law School, just like Obama before him.

DEAL with reality... The ‘original intent’ was ‘we the people’ are government. The founding fathers did NOT give power to anyone but two ‘parents’ to create a ‘natural born’ US citizen... birthed on US soil. ‘We the people’ power. Stop playing stupid games with our Constitution.

[Political Junkie Too]

That's your choice and your vote. But don't allow emotions to SEPARATE YOU FROM FACTS !

For me, given the facts, I will ALWAYS choose the candidate born in the United States of two citizen parents over anyone else.

Consider that in 2016, the GOP ran two candidates born in the United States of zero citizen parents (Jindal, Rubio), and one candidate born in a foreign country of one citizen parent. None won the nomination.

The constitutional definition of "natural born citizen" can be debated back and forth for ages, but I'm willing to bet that the collective conscious of We the People will always gravitate to the candidate born on US soil to two citizen parents.

-PJ

[Yosemitest]

WRONG !
CHECK THE LAW AT THE TIME OF THE PERSON IN QUESTION'S BIRTH DATE !

Maybe that will shut those TROLLS up (but I doubt it).

Exclusive: Birth Certificate for Ted Cruz's Mother

WHY feed the Piranha, WHEN all they're going to do is CONTINUE their baseless attacks ?

"Eleanor were naturalized as Canadian citizens before “Ted’s” birth."

WHERE are you getting those LIES. from the DemocRAT Underground?
You really SHOULD VERIFY things BEFORE you expose yourself as a LIBERAL !

Exclusive: Birth Certificate for Ted Cruz's Mother

... The Cruz campaign was responding to inquiries from Breitbart News about a document showing that both of Cruz's parents had been named on a list of voters in Calgary for the 1974 Canadian federal election.

Only Canadian citizens were (and are) able to vote in federal elections.
The lists were compiled through a door-to-door process of "enumeration" by registrars, and were publicized partly so that mistakes could be corrected.

According to Elections Canada–the independent, non-partisan agency that runs Canadian elections- - "voters were sent a copy of the list showing the name, address and occupation of all voters in the relevant poll."

Mistakes were frequent (i.e. "Raphael" instead of "Rafael"), and voters were given the opportunity to fix errors.

Ezra Levant, a Canadian conservative journalist who was born and raised in Calgary, recalled the process of enumeration.

"It was like a census ... they were very quick and non-obtrusive visits, someone standing in your doorstep," he told Breitbart News via e-mail.
"They certainly didn't ask for ID."

"It is not surprising to me that there may be a spelling error in someone's name.
A name appearing on the list would not necessarily indicate that they were a citizen, or that they themselves had even spoken to the enumerator- -
someone else in the household may have spoken for them," Levant added.

The Cruz campaign told Breitbart News on Friday that Cruz's mother had never become a Canadian citizen.

"She was in Canada on a work permit and never became a permanent resident, let alone a citizen," said Jason Johnson, chief strategist for the Cruz campaign.

"She never registered to vote and never applied for Canadian citizenship."

In a subsequent statement to Breitbart News, Johnson added:
"Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law.
In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970:
Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967 - - only 3 years before Senator Cruz's birth."

[Yosemitest]

"The constitutional definition of "natural born citizen" can be debated back and forth for ages,
but I'm willing to bet that the collective conscious of 'We the People' will always gravitate to the candidate born on US soil to two citizen parents."

Maybe so.
But that has NOTING TO DO WITH WHAT's WRITTEN IN THE FEDERAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES !

An article well worth anyone's time is

On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen",
MAR 11, 2015, Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement

... While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape,
at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.^15×
15. See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.
Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a "natural born Citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution.
Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a "natural born Citizen" even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.^16×
16. See Michael Dobbs, John McCain's Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html [http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].
Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President,
wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain's birth.^17×
17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).
Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain's candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord.
The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency,
resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was "inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the 'natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States,
as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term 'natural born Citizen.' "^18×
18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state.
Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 1964,^19×
19. See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm [http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL].
and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.^20×
20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html.

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle.
The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.
Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues.
To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a "natural born Citizen."
Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve.
But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization.
And the phrase "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.
Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent - - whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone - - is a U.S. citizen from birth
and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.



---



* Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
** Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University; Partner, Bancroft PLLC.

[Jim Robinson]

Ted Cruz is a good guy but he lost the primary. Better luck next time.

In the meanwhile, we Trumpsters on this website supports our president whom we worked hard to elect. If all you want to do is slam us and him, perhaps you should be posting somewhere else.

[Yosemitest]

That's not all I want. I'm simply stating FACTS, and the snowflake s can;t tolerate the truth.
They need to grow up.

[Jim Robinson]

And you need to quit insulting us snowflakes who enjoy posting in a more or less nevertrumper-free environment. Now either you knock it off or you leave FR.

[Yosemitest]

So I don’t have the right to present them the facts ?

[Political Junkie Too]

You are proving my point.

You can cite Federal law all you want, but the Collective Conscious of We the People is nullifying it at the ballot box.

They know in their hearts what it means to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." They know who "ourselves" are, and they certainly know who our "posterity" are, and a person born in Canada to a Cuban citizen father will always fall short against that measure in the voting booth.

-PJ

[Yosemitest]

And they don’t give a damn about what our Founding Fathers wrote ... in the Constitution, or our elected officials wrote in our Federal Laws that followed.

[Political Junkie Too]

And they don’t give a damn about what our Founding Fathers wrote...

Oh, but they do.

The Founding Fathers didn't write the Federal statutes that you cited, but they did write the Preamble that I cited.

In fact, as I posted many times previously, Founding Father Thomas Paine wrote in 1791 that the President must "must be a native of the country," and he is in contrast to the rulers of England who are "often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country."

So the questions that Paine put to We the People of 1791 were: l) what is a "native of the country?" 2) what is "half a foreigner?" 3) What does "full natural or political connection with the country" mean?

If we ask Thomas Paine's questions of Ted Cruz, l) is he a native of the United States, 2) Is he half a foreigner, 3) Does he have a "full natural or political connection with the country," what would the answers be?

These are the words of a Founding Father, two years after the ratification of the Constitution, not federal statutes written by lawmakers hundreds of years later.

...or our elected officials wrote in our Federal Laws that followed.

Like ObamaCare, TARP, continuing resolutions...

Federal Laws are not Supreme Law of the Land, but any "Thing in the Constitution" is. "Natural born citizen" is a "thing" in the Constitution, as is the Preamble that frames it as "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The people understand what is necessary to secure their liberty for themselves and their children, which is why they elected Donald Trump.

-PJ

[Freedom56v2]

I’m here for the FACTS and that’s it.
But FACTS are something that you can’t tolerate.
You can go and kiss the ring of YOUR DEAR LEADER, snowflake !

---

You have some interesting fact sets...many are conclusions...not that I cannot tolerate facts, you just don’t present them well and I disagree with your conclusions.

You claim you are here for facts, yet you throw out incendiary #NeverTrump rhetoric. Who is the snowflake?

I don’t kiss anyone’s ring, I weigh each and every Trump action. It is called critical thinking, and there have been some actions that I have not agreed with. However, who on this planet agrees with everything any one person says??

With all due respect, you seem to miss the most basic of FACTS. Had Donald Trump not won the presidency, we would have Hillary for President. When I find myself disagreeing with something President Trump says, I think about that FACT...I am grateful we have President Trump. That is not kissing the ring of my dear leader, it is being extremely realistic and pragmatic.

I suggest you find it in your self to start looking for things to be grateful for with this president so you are not supporting the globalist democrats.

[Freedom56v2]

I’m here for the FACTS and that’s it.
But FACTS are something that you can’t tolerate.
You can go and kiss the ring of YOUR DEAR LEADER, snowflake !

---

You have some interesting fact sets...many are conclusions...not that I cannot tolerate facts, you just don’t present them well and I disagree with your conclusions.

You claim you are here for facts, yet you throw out incendiary #NeverTrump rhetoric. Who is the snowflake?

I don’t kiss anyone’s ring, I weigh each and every Trump action. It is called critical thinking, and there have been some actions that I have not agreed with. However, who on this planet agrees with everything any one person says??

With all due respect, you seem to miss the most basic of FACTS. Had Donald Trump not won the presidency, we would have Hillary for President. When I find myself disagreeing with something President Trump says, I think about that FACT...I am grateful we have President Trump. That is not kissing the ring of my dear leader, it is being extremely realistic and pragmatic.

I suggest you find it in your self to start looking for things to be grateful for with this president so you are not supporting the globalist democrats.