Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Lurkinanloomin
The original poster claimed Cruz, if elected, would be the only President not born in the United States. This is a careless attention to history, and is common among Trumpbots.

Various of his allies attempted to salvage his laughable claim, including you, but there is no repairing it. Eight of our Presidents were not born in the United States. That is a fact.

As to the rest, the courts -- not deranged billionaires with a cult following -- will make those decisions. So far, not a single one of these challenges has enjoyed any fate but to be laughed out of court; so much for TheDonald's® grasp of the law.

295 posted on 03/25/2016 9:40:42 PM PDT by FredZarguna (And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Fifth Avenue to be Born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies ]


To: FredZarguna

those claiming that common law had no place in America’s constitution ignore the fact that America went by common law during the American colonies in the 1700’s, and the Natural born term was commonly used and stemmed from the colonies borrowing statutory laws used in England- These colony laws were American laws, based on English laws- and common law- But birthers want to throw out this part of history because it conflicts with their “I hate Ted” ideology- The inclusion of the term ‘natural born citizen’ in the 1790 act was pretty obviously a result of the Colonies using the term to mean exactly what the English statute declared it meant- and not some fictional ‘born on American soil to 2 us parents’

Like the CRS report states, the weight of legal and historical authorities indicate that the term NBC refers to a person who is entitled to all the privileges and responsibility of us citizenship at birth or by birth- Recent court results show there is no difference between the two terms at birth and by birth . Those born off soil, and meeting the legal requirements for US citizenship AT BIRTH are not required to go through a naturalization process

Those making the claim that it is a form of naturalization because it is ‘granted by way of statute’ are essentially creating a third category for acquiring citizenship when the courts have declared several times there are only 2 ways- they declare that there is now a process of naturalization that does NOT require an actual process- but they cite no evidence, historical or legal, to show that the courts even recognize this third category of citizenship- The weight of evidence shows that there are only two ways to become a citizen- one: At Birth and By Birth, and two: After Birth- where immigrants must in almost every circumstance, take an oath of allegiance - Those saying that a process of naturalization isn’t needed for naturalization to occur have created a fictitious third category of citizenship- Naturalization by statute alone (with no need for the actual process of naturalization that all immigrants must undergo)


296 posted on 04/10/2016 4:24:01 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson