Posted on 01/20/2016 6:57:04 AM PST by RC one
Ted Cruz’s mother may have been a US citizen by birth but she took Canadian citizenship before his birth.
I don’t see how a Canadian, even a previous US citizen, can give birth to a US citizen in Canada. She took on Canadian citizenship before he was born.
Anchor babies are NOT citizens. This is the OPPOSITE of what happened in the Cruz case.
It is YOU people who choose to be obstinate and childish. It is not up to Ted to provide Consulate appears that his mom may not have ever gotten. In the absence of citizenship renunciation, Ted is American.
You guys are parsing clauses like leftists. Most of you, not all, it’s all b/c you support the Rotten donor and pal Trump.
It is inexplicable to me that Ted Cruz wandered around Texas for years needing a birth certificate and all he had to show was his Canadian Birth certificate?
How has he been able to vote in any US Elections? Drivers license? Where are those documents? I bet the Democrats have them.
Huh? What a weird comment.
A CRBA is a very common and normal document and very easy to show. Strange that you would get so upset about it. Very odd indeed.
It is inexplicable to me that Ted Cruz wandered around Texas for years needing a birth certificate and all he had to show was his Canadian Birth certificate?
How has he been able to vote in any US Elections? Drivers license? Where are those documents? I bet the Democrats have them.
I wonder the same thing.
- Did he register with the Selective Service?
- Did he enroll at Harvard as a foreign student?
- When did he obtain a US passport?
I don’t think the dems have them..if they did, they would blow the lid off this sham.
I also don’t think he has them. I know they say that he has a CRBA, if so, produce it, or step aside.
Strange that you would want to disqualify our best candidate over a possible omission by his mom. Really strange and suspect.
Common sense makes this issue unassailable. True.
It is not as ludicrous position as you postulate. The wisdom of the founding fathers is that the ultimate redress for any grievous overstep of or by Congress, lies with the People. As Congress represents the People, if such and overstep occurs, it can be corrected by correcting Congress during the next election.
The same Article I Section 8 (even same sentence) empowers Congress to set a uniform rule of bankruptcies. In similar hyperbolic case, Congress could enable any business throughout the world to file for bankruptcy in US Courts. There would be many dire consequences to such a move that dont need to be discussed here for the purposes of this argument. None the less, the authority is clearly articulated at the feet of Congress.
I am of the opinion that while Congress is authorized by the Constitution, the restraint exercised is done so for either fear of being removed from their position by the People or those representatives that are honestly holding to principles. I would point out that in one overstep, Congress removed jus soli as a means of justification for citizenship. The 14th amendment restored that justification for US citizenship and made it difficult for future sessions of Congress to remove that justification. It was the People through the later actions of Congress via the 14th amendment, that corrected that overstep.
I am also of the opinion that should a Congress pass an Act that authorizes the whole world as NBC, the People would rise up, throw the bums out, and like the 14th amendment, correct the actions of Congress either via subsequent Acts and possibly via another amendment.
So his mom doesn’t apply to have him registered properly as a citizen and we should overlook it because he’s the best guy we’ve got?
Do you have any idea what you are saying and how it sounds? The end justifies the means. Just show the silly paper.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and your mistakes, and so on. But don't expect the rest of us to jump on the ship of "Let's Subvert the US Constitution."
If the Dems have these documents they will wait for a moment that matters like after Cruz s the nominee OR if he is nominated for the Supteme Court.
LOL. You can't describe that "Congressional overstep" with any particularity, because none exists.
Art IV Sec. 2 makes citizens of a state, citizens of the US. Some states refused to grant citizenship to the children of slaves. That is what the 14th amendment cures. Not some Congressional overstep.
Anyway, we should cease this dialog, because continuing it will only lead to hard feelings. I have no hard feelings toward a person who reaches the wrong conclusion on want of understanding. That's innocent, common, and shows no effort to deceive.
Levin, OTOH, get out of here. He's like Baghdad Bob on this issue.
LOL, I find your assumption that I have not read the law, in general very amusing.
The fact is that I read quite a bit of law as part of my job. Granted most of what I read is international law and treaties that govern financial institutions, security and international standards and is not related directly to citizenship ... other than when I have to submit my paperwork for work permits.
But I can tell from how you describe "how the law works," that you do not understand beyond rote application.
I do not mean for that to be an insult, it is not. Sometimes rote application is tricky.
Heck, citizenship law can be done by rote. The problem is that people don't know the rules in the first place, and second, they don't like the result they get when the rules are applied, so they revert to magic thinking.
Thank you. That case is quite helpful, if not fully dispositive.
Looks like settled law to me.
I get to the same place, just using the US constitution (no resort to Vattel, British common law, etc.).
Look at paragraph 5b.
OK, I misunderstood. I thought you were using it to support eligibility, which is why I said it wasn’t dispositive.
At this point, I have significant questions about his eligibility, and am looking for something that sets my mind at ease. So far I haven’t seen it. And so far, you’ve supplied the most useful material.
That's funny. No sweat. It's funny to me because I have posted for days, many lengthy arguments, that Cruz is naturalized and therefore not NBC. I'm convinced, no doubt in my mind.
-- I have significant questions about his eligibility, and am looking for something that sets my mind at ease. --
I'm quite interested in any authority (case law only) that can reasonably be taken as Cruz was NOT naturalized. I've only looked at about 50 cases, but who knows, maybe I'm missing the obvious.
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.