Nope, there are no magical gradients of citizen, only 2, Natural born and naturalized, 100% legal consensus among non-fruitcakes.
Yes, there is a FR position, sorry if you don’t like it pal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3060736/posts
Closed subject.
<<<<<Surely in a country of so many hundreds of millions people, we can find a plausible and strong candidate without baggage to run against that murderous hag of a Hildabeast.<<<<<<<
How fortunate that no one gives a good g*d damn about this so called “baggage”, despite your fear mongering about the evil media will say (which I dispute). We already know their attack on Cruz, he’s a “crazy teabagger”, NO ONE cares about fringe legal theories.
<<<<Please stop your pathetic blustering.<<<<
Please stop peddling fringe legal theories to tear down the conservative frontrunner. Sorry if I’ve been harsh with you pal but we’ve all debated this endlessness, time and time again. It’s all been said before. It’s over, your fringe theories are rejected and we’re tired of hearing about it, that’s it. Expect to be attacked EVERY TIME you repeat these ridiculous lies.
Well said, Impy. And the article posted by JimRob should be a sign for all FReepers with NBC Derangement Syndrome to walk back from the ledge and accept that 99% of legal scholars have, for two centuries, agreed that a natural-born citizen of the U.S. is a U.S. citizen at birth (under the laws in effect at the time of his birth), in contradistinction to a naturalized citizen.
And kabumpo, Republican President Chester Arthur’s father (a British subject born in Ireland, and who didn’t become a naturalized U.S. citizen until years after his son Chester was born) called, and wants to know why Democrats never raised the issue of his son not having two U.S.-citizen parents at birth, and instead falsely claiming that Chester was born in Canada instead of Vermont. Could it be that even Democrat lawyers knew, when Chester Arthur ran for VP in 1880 (an office that, as was clarified by the 12th Amendment, has the same constitutional qualifications as the presidency) that if they accepted that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont that they would be accepting the fact that he was a natural-born citizen, and their only shot at disqualifying him was to claim that Chester was born in Canada to a non-citizen father (which, under the laws in effect at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, would not have conferred U.S. citizenship, since the laws at the time treated fathers differently from mothers, with only U.S. citizen fathers conferring U.S. citizenship at birth to children born abroad)?
But for decades before Cruz’s birth, fedral law conferred U.S. citizenship at birth to children born abroad with one U.S.-citizen parent (regardless of whether it’s the father or mother) whose citizen parent met certain minimum residency requirements (at the time of Cruz’s birth, having lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years at any time, including for at least 5 years after turning 14). Ted Cruz’s mother met such requirement in spades, which is why no one can claim that Cruz wasn’t a U.S. citizen at birth. It is embarrassing that, after all the attention that such laws got prior to the 2008 elections, when it was (correctly) postulated by legal scholars and citizens at large that if Barack Obama was born outside of U.S. territory (such as in Kenya) that he wouldn’t have been a U.S. citizen at birth, and thus not a natural-born citizen, due to the fact that at the time of his birth his only U.S.-citizen parent (his mother) had not lived in the U.S. for 5+ years after turning 14 (since she had not yet turned 19 when baby Barack was born), that you fail to grasp that crucial legal distinction in Ted Cruz’s case. At the time of Ted Cruz’s birth, Ted Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen who had lived in the U.S. for well more than 10 years, including for well more than 5 years after she turned 14, so Ted Cruz would be a U.S. citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen of th U.S., even had he been birn in the Moon.
You argue like a Dem - attempting to marginalize me by tribal browbeating (”everyone agrees, so shut up”) and labeling my discourse as “fringe”. Only a pathetically insecure person needs to cling to a group identity or an “official position”. That fear of dissent, caused by intellectual inadequacy, is the basis of totalitarianism. The need to smash argument, with threats and violence, because of the secret fear of being proved wrong.
I was the one who called it on Rubio being a phony - and worse - and I had people like you snarling and menacing me at the time. I didn’t care, because I knew I was right - and events proved me right.
I live and work in the belly of the beast - the majority of the people I associate with are Obamalunatics - I know their moves. So you can bellow and bluster and try to blow my house down all you want. All you gain from that is revealing how fearful and cowardly you are.