Open request to Senator Cruz

[big bad easter bunny]

The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens. You do not meet that qualification, if I am wrong please straiten me out. If you get the nomination I promise you the democrats will do what the republicans are too scared to do.

Dear Ted I think you are awesome but we all need to know the answer to this.

[Fantasywriter]

An illustration of Obama favoring US citizens by [not] deporting criminal illegal aliens:

‘One thousand criminal immigrants released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody in fiscal year 2013 went on to commit new crimes, according to a new Department of Homeland Security document.’

snip

‘In fiscal year 2013, ICE released 36,007 criminal immigrants. The Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted Friday, per the DHS document, that the 1,000 went on to commit and be convicted of new crimes, including:

• assault with a deadly weapon;

• terroristic threats;

• failure to register as a sex offender;

• lewd acts with a child under 14;

• aggravated assault;

• robbery;

• hit-and-run;

• criminal street gang;

• rape spouse by force; and

• child cruelty: possible injury/death.’

We can only hope Obama doesn’t start favoring US citizens even more. Heaven only knows what kind and magnitude of a crime wave he would release on us then.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/30/1000-criminal-immigrants-released-in-2013-committed-new-crimes/

[Note: Obama IS a foreigner. That is why he hates legal US citizens and invariably favors foreigners—including criminal foreigners—even at the deadly expense of law abiding US citizens.]

[Fantasywriter]

Lol! Perfect illustration.

[Fantasywriter]

Omc—it’s him!

[CpnHook]

Oh, you can reply with pictures. My, aren’t you clever. No wonder you find a few paragraphs too much to handle — you’re still at the picture book level.

[Dajjal]

ineligible bump

[CpnHook]

From the F.R. posting guidelines:

Don't jump threads - If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it's considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread.

So I'm not chasing your latest attempt to go off-topic. (Besides, immigration is your argument, not mine.) If you want to stay on topic, you might want to help DL; his argument is floundering badly.

[Fantasywriter]

It is news to me that I’m allegedly trying to restart an argument. Could you clarify the specific argument I am allegedly attempting to restart?

As to the other poster you mentioned, he needs no help from me. He has not only an impressive command of the facts—he sees them from a conservative POV. This is the one thing you have never and will never be able to do.

Thus the problem. The liberal POV is fundamentally flawed, but it’s the only one you can see. So you post garbled ideas such as that Obama could deport US citizens if he wasn’t so poignantly favorable toward them. It’s a twisted, moonbat mess. You really should leave it on your Obot sites, and keep it well off FR.

[WildHighlander57]

And nobody warned Ted Cruz about having to do steps to preserve his status, so he doesn’t fall into the situation you mentioned.

IMHO he’s eligible, and I will vote for him.

[DiogenesLamp]

IMHO he’s eligible, and I will vote for him.

I believe eligibility no longer means anything and I will vote for him too.

[CpnHook]

As to the other poster you mentioned, he needs no help from me. He has not only an impressive command of the facts --

"Impressive command of the facts?" Hmmm. Let's examine that claim.

1. He claims that the jus soli rule of citizenship was not the original Constitutional view, but rather that error on that point started with William Rawle in his 1829 treatise on Constitution law. But, to that I've shown that well prior to Rawle there were writers (Zephaniah Swift (1795), St. George Tucker (1803), and James Kent (1826)) who had already articulated the same view as Rawle. So DL is way off on this point.

2. He claims that anti-Birthers only offer "later day lawyers" to support their view of Article 11 birth citizenship. To that I point out that Swift (1795) and Tucker (1803) can hardly be called "later day writers" when DL is brandishing Samuel Roberts (writing in 1817) as some early authority.

He shows no "impressive command of the facts."

He needs help from somebody.

[Fantasywriter]

‘He claims that the jus soli rule of citizenship was not the original Constitutional view’

Excuse me, but you DO want to see Ted Cruz elected this next go round, if the Good Lord delays His coming...right?

[CpnHook]

Under the Birther view that Vattel § 212 was adopted into Art. II, §1 of the Constitution, Cruz would not be eligible. I (anti-Birther) am asserting that the Framers did NOT look to Vattel in drafting that section.

Thus, I am citing historical sources that are earlier, more credible, and more on point than the contrary sources being held up in support of the Birther view I claim is wrong.

Try better to keep up.

[Fantasywriter]

So you are in favor of a ‘16 Cruz win?

[CpnHook]

I'm furthering that effort by making clear that -- contrary to Birther theory -- our Framers did NOT incorporate some Vattel "two citizen parent" requirement into Article II of the Constitution.

So first things first. You do agree that isn't the Constitutional standard, right?

[Fantasywriter]

What caught my eye, and what I am/have been inquiring about, is the following comment:

‘He claims that the jus soli rule of citizenship was not the original Constitutional view’

So do you agree that jus soli was not the original intent, or do you claim that it was?

[freepersup]

An eighth grader can easily discern what the founders intent was when establishing the higher/purer qualifying criteria for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, but you can’t? Soebarkah is exhibit A. Your Fogbow credentials fell out of your wallet. Ya’ want me to mail em’ back to you?

[Fantasywriter]

‘Your Fogbow credentials fell out of your wallet. Ya’ want me to mail em’ back to you?’

Lol!

& so true.

[AmericanVictory]

Neither the article which you link to nor the sources to which it refers are able to cite any actual Supreme Court decision holding what you seem to think is so obvious that you are willing to ridicule anyone who raises the question. The fact remains that, while there is no case deciding the issue, those who did express the opposite opinion, although there is no decision, are people whose opinions are of considerably more weight than yours. The include Chief Justice John Marshall and Mr. Justice Story and and one other Chief Judge. In addition they include the principal author of the 14th Amendment.

Where is the actual authority of anyone of significance in the early republic who agrees with what you, incorrectly, assume is established?

There is no reason to believe that "progressive" jurists will give Cruz a free ride on this.

[CpnHook]

An eighth grader can easily discern what the founders intent was when establishing the higher/purer qualifying criteria for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, but you can’t?

I'll grant you I've been contending with a good bit of 8th grade level research and debating skills here.

So are you adhering to the view that de Vattel was the blueprint for Article II, §1 of the Constitution? If so, that would make Cruz ineligible.

[Fantasywriter]

‘If so, that would make Cruz ineligible.’

According to your own personal views on jus soli, is Cruz eligible or ineligible?