Everybody has a bad day.
His intentions were good, to avoid a loaded question. He should have avoided it more head on instead of looking like he was avoiding a question.
To extrapolate that to your thread title is silly and almost certainly agenda driven.
Talk about a fair-weather friend...
And this means what to you? Anybody who drops a bundle here within the physical confines of the US is a citizen?
If that were the case, then why all the extra hubbub in the amendment? Things like "subject to the jurisdiction of" and the additions of "and of the states wherein they reside?
But your conclusion that he's 'just another smarmy politician' is ridiculous and isn't in any way born out by the facts.
“...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
He should have mentioned that the above shows could be interpreted that illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Also, why would that phrase be there if it’s not to limit the overgeneralization preceding it? And how come the American Indians were not given citizenship until years after the amendment was ratified?
Can you think of any other politicians that comes even close to Cruz in terms of courage, integrity, and faith in the free market system? So who are you throwing your support behind if it’s not Cruz?
And you are just another smarmy blogger who couldn’t get his crap read anywhere if not for Free Republic.
Have you contributed to the Freepathon?
And who is your candidate? Jeb? Nice.
You always have Trump.
I am still for Cruz.
I have never found perfection in any human, especially a politician.
So who is your perfect politician?
And libertarian neocon is just another smarmy nobody whose views hold equal weight as George Will.
When Ted Cruz isn’t conservative enough for you, there is no one left. Time for you to go find an island in the Pacific and hide..
Birthright citizenship is NOT in the US Constitution. It was specifically rejected in the case of kids born to an invading foreign army, which is close to what we have now. But in truth, the current US Supreme Court will NOT allow any act of Congress or Executive Order interfere with massive illegal immigration.
Ah, I gather from your blog (pimp) that you’re pushing for Carly.
Makes sense that you’d do whatever you can to try to trash the strongest candidate, Ted Cruz.
Talk about smarmy? By using such tactics against a fine candidate like Ted Cruz, you’re making a muddy pig out of yourself.
If the Russian Ambassador has a child in the United States, is that child an American citizen?
To the typical voter who saw this interview it won’t seem like a carefully calculated response to a “gotcha question”, it will just be another politician who can’t or won’t answer a simple question that the public is obviously interested in. Then they will hear Trump who can and will.
Cruz blew it.
Ted’s been carrying the water for true conservatives for the past 8 years. Now Trump has barreled in and stole the thunder from everybody. I’m not going to jump ship and join the Trump bandwagon just yet. Ted has the intellectual tour de force to put Trumps ideas into action!
It would be helpful if you disclosed who you support and why before foisting a hit piece on FR as objective.
Freepers’ are not low info voters and crap like your “vanity” puke is offensive.
I have only read your account. So just going by that.
But with that, I think there could be a different take.
He has said before that he agrees with the jurisprudence on birthright citizenship. That is definitely the majority opinion (not saying it is right...I’m very familiar with the contrary opinion). This is current “constitutional law” (as in the majority of judges/opinions are here). He has said he agrees with it.
He is now saying that as a matter of policy it doesn’t make sense.
That’s perfectly compatible. Our current policy needs can absolutely not square with constitutional law. At that point you have to change the constitution.
That “could” be all that he is saying.
I don’t know how else you would talk about the issue, if you think that our current reality shouldn’t allow birthright citizenship, but you think that the constitution does require it. You would have to say just exactly that.
That’s my take at least, again, just after reading your account.
Cruz did fine. He answered the question despite being interrupted more than 4 times by Kelly demanding a Yes or No answer to a complex question that doesn’t have yes or no for an answer.
Cruz’s answer was “first we build the wall, then we can start the dialog about what to do with the current illegals.” [paraphrased]
If you saw anything different, then you weren’t being objective.
If your so freaking brilliant about how to be pure and true, then get off your ass and run for President.
Free Republic is less and less useful as a reliable source as we get into the election cycle because trolls from each camp get on to trash rival candidates. My rule is not to believe any of them and do my own research. And incidentally, who in the world is watching Mz Kelly’s show after her disastrous performance at the first debate?