Posted on 08/11/2013 2:54:35 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Potential 2016 presidential contender Donald Trump spoke to ABC's Jonathan Karl Sunday morning and reignited the birther issue that he helped spark back in 2011, questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama's birth certificate and wondering whether Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, was eligible to president. "Was there a birth certificate?" Trump asked. "You tell me. Some people say that was not his birth certificate. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows. And you don't know, either, Jonathan. You're a smart guy, you don't know, either." "I'm pretty convinced he was born in the United States," Karl said. "Ah! Pretty convinced," Trump said, and rolled over Karl's objections that he was 100% sure Obama was an American citizen. "Pretty sure is not acceptable." Trump made Obama's birth certificate a major issue in his aborted 2012 run for the GOP nomination, ultimately leading to Obama releasing his longform birth certificate. Karl asked Trump if the Canadian-born Cruz was eligible for the office. (Cruz's mother is an American citizen.) "If he was born in Canada, then perhaps not," Trump said. "That will be ironed out. I don't know the circumstances. If he says he was born in Canada, that's his thing."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
It’s an Obama kind of gaffe, Obamaroid being a pseudo-intellectual and all.
“In 1860, Arthur was appointed to the military staff of Governor Edwin D. Morgan as engineer-in-chief. The office was a patronage appointment of minor importance until the outbreak of the Civil War in April 1861, when New York and the other northern states were faced with raising and equipping armies of a size never before seen in American history. Arthur was given the rank of brigadier general and assigned to the quartermaster department.”—Wikipedia
I agree with all you stated, Marcella.
It also makes it clear that RUBIO is NOT eligible, since both parents were Cuban nationals at the time of his birth. Same is true for Jindal, as his parents were Indian nationals when he was born.
Rubio is a lost cause anyway, even if he was eligible.
I think you’ve shown that there was at least one school of thought that argued for your definition. You’ve failed to account for other schools of thought that may have taken a different approach. One, say, based on the legal system that the Founders were raised in such as
the English Common Law.
What you have entirely failed to is to provide any evidence that you were taught the birther definition of NBC in Civics classes. Plenty have made that assertion in the last 5 years but none have been able to link to anything to back it up despite the internet being awash with examples of old school text books. And you talk about my credibility....
You forgot Dual Citizen.
Like my daughter. Born in the states to a foreign national.
Kinda like King Soetoro.
You are incorrect. There are only naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. The word “citizen” encompasses both categories of citizens.
Those who are born as citizens are natural born citizens as they have no need of naturalization. Your assertion that “Congress has no authority to make a statute governing the citizenship of a person born in the US...” is demonstratively incorrect.
Firstly, Title 8 section 1401 subsection A clearly describes the situation you speak of and secondly, the very first Congress stated that individuals born beyond the jurisdiction of the US, to US parents where to be treated as “natural born citizens”.
Dear Olde Chet! To think that for all these years I thought he was just another crooked Collector of the Port of New York, the sweetest patronage deal in 19th C America. Thanks Germanicus!
However, he will never replace Ben Butler in my recollections.
Chet Arthur bio apologies ping.
Such is the traditional view. Perhaps someday, the SCOTUS will get off its black-robed duff and take one of the many opportunities that have arisen to rule on this matter.
English common law does not apply in the United States. 
Partus Sequitur Patrem - citizenship by birth to citizens.
English common law does not apply in the United States.
With the pirate Roberts, globalist puppet, soiling the bench, that will probably happen when Cruz is the nominee, perhaps two weeks before Nov 3rd, 2016. It’s what happens when men with no honor are placed in high positions of power.
Another one is Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. It has the exception for children to born abroad to citizen parents. But, some contend that the framers rejected Blackstone in favor of Vattel’s definition.
ping to 114
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3053528/posts?page=114#114
Not according to USCIS currently published documents.
"restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."
USCIS: Reacquisition of citizenship
The problem with that assertion is that the Supreme Court spent much of one decision examining the sources of the term "natural born" (the Wong Kim Ark decision) and didn't come to that conclusion.
He didn't coin the term--he wrote in French, and his phrase in French does not include the words for "born" or "citizen." You quote a translation, but not the only possible translation, and one which was (some say) not published until well after the Constitution was written. That suggests the translator may have gotten his wording from our Constitution, not the other way around.
Didn’t George Washington have a copy of the Law Of Nations in his library at home? If so, which language version?
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.