Posted on 03/20/2016 11:46:56 AM PDT by conservativejoy
Simple:
The Founder Father’s included NBC within the Eligibility Clause as a means to prevent someone born with foreign allegiance from every becoming President and thus Commander In Chief of the US Military. The intent of this is documented. This prevented those that were citizens of foreign countries from immigrating and influencing the Presidency.
So an NBC is someone that is and only is a US citizen at birth, thus having allegiance only to the USA. Dual Citizenship can not be NBC as the intent of including NBC within the Clause was to prevent foreign influence/allegiances. To be NBC there can be no other possibility of allegiance or citizenship claim.
Fact: Cruz held Dual Citizenship with Canada until 2014. Cruz until denouncing his Canadian Citizenship had allegiance to Canada.
Fact: Cruz is ineligible.
Maybe you are.
IIRC residency had to be 5 years before someone could get Canadian citizenship.
They were only there 3 to 4 years, then Ted was born.
Isn’t reflecting blame on another when thrown at you just one attribute of liberals? And the dilution of the importance as to the ‘parents’ BOTH must be American citizens. Not one as so many seem to have been taught in more recent years.
This video is one which would have served the purpose 7 years ago - when it was needed badly. Better late than NEVER!
Go TRUMP! Stand your ground until Ted produces Bona Fides.
Oh, I get that .. but what my question really relates to is that the Framers understanding of “Natural Born Citizen” would have meant something beyond ‘citizen,’ and what was understood by them at the time I would daresay was that NBC is the citizen born of citizens.
If I am, it would be completely invisible to me. People generally can't see their own flaws.
The wife of a Canadian citizen can become a citizen after one year.
“The act “defined” nothing.”
Really?
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born...shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
See how that works?
Clear? Yes.
But NOWHERE does this document establish the indicia you demand to use for determining any specific individual's NBC status. So, what are you trying to prove by quoting the Constitution to me? I probably know it as well as or better than you in the first place.
Either you are being intentionally obtuse or you are too dense to get it. Either way, I will give you the generally accepted definition of a natural born citizen one more time:
“A natural born citizen is one whose claim to citizenship derives naturally from the circumstances of his or her birth so that there is a natural and abiding connection between the child and the society and nation into which he or she is born.”
Yes, the highest standard of loyal citizenship - 2 citizen parents and born on the soil - which is actually Cruz’s description of NBC in 2012.
A Freeper, WhiskeyX (I think), explained this in detail to me. If no other country can claim you but the USA then you are a natural born citizen. A person with dual citizenship doesn’t fit that category i.e. Cruz and Obama. So that specific standard of birth plus two citizen (loyal) parents and you’re in.
Is this what you mean?
That fact remains under lock and key (more than likely w/BO’Bs documentations) As we’ve heard they could vote, I would say ‘more than likely’ both parents were Canadian citizens.
This little jewel will throw a fly in the ointment, for sure. Trump is putting the pressure on Ted to come clean but Ted has one of two things - shyness or modesty. He continues to refuse to unveil himself for all to see what lies underneath.
At last, FOUND someone with knowledge who speaks our language! :-))
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA, you funny. Actually the exact opposite tends to be true.
“It very clearly shows that the child born abroad of two U.S. citizen parents is to be considered as a natural born citizen.”
Yes, it does. The phrase “considered as” is the qualifier that clearly states the child is an alien born and not a natural born child who must employ the naturalization law to naturalize and thereby be “considered as” being entitled to exercise some but not all of the privileges and duties of an actual natural born citizen of the U.S. The twisted definition this judge and other people have attempted to misread into the Naturalization Act of 1790 is quite obviously disproven by citations of prior English naturalization laws and by the obvious rules of construction in this Naturalization Act of 1790. To see how that fails to make any legal sense you only need to use the same sentence construction on the same Naturalization Act of 1790 sentence stating the naturalization of a child born abroad with alien or foreign parents.
The writers of the Constitution defined natural born this way:
from Naturalization Act of 1790:
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:
“the children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Who do you think I am going with?
See how that works?
Yes, it means they aren't.
Pretty much sums it up. Can I direct all the hate I am getting to you?
“IIRC residency had to be 5 years before someone could get Canadian citizenship.”
“They were only there 3 to 4 years, then Ted was born.”
I don’t recall at the moment exactly what I found when I researched that, but I do recall the time period changed between 1948 and the present. The timeline of the parents presence in Canada is in some dispute, so the December 1970 birth of Ted Cruz may or may not have been just after qualification for naturalization or two years prior to such naturalization. Someone would have to nail down the actual travels of both parents, and consideration of Eleanor’s time in Britain would need to be taken into consideration as well. At present I cannot exclude the possibility that Eleanor quietly retained her U.S. citizenship at the same time as acquiring a Canadian citizenship she did not disclose upon returning to the United States on a U.S. passport.
He was thought to be ineligible from the beginning- remembering Civics class from years ago. However that was then and this is now. ‘Folks’ today have glossed over so much of our Constitution to the facts they wish to espouse. It was suggested at this time the Naturalization citizenship test shows only one parent need be a citizen - not both parents. Just how far have generations wandered off the beaten path?
Do you know how good I feel at the moment?. knowing I was right in thinking the facts learned were set in concrete. It’s the feeling of graduation day all over again. :-))
However, we all must remember that nothing we were taught can be deemed ‘significant and correct’ until the high courts give us permission to do so. The nightmares which began in Civics have lived in my heart for all this time. Back then it was felt we would come to this act in the play. It seems we have arrived.
But it takes 5 years for the husband to get citizenship and they had only been there for 3 to 4 years .
If they got there in late ‘68, the soonest Ted’s dad could have gotten citizenship was ‘73.
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.