Posted on 06/10/2014 7:11:53 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Looks like some good eatin’ right there!
” ... if someone is born in another country, they are a citizen of that country first, ...”
That depends on the laws of the country where the child was born. Not all countries confer citizenship by place of birth.
Don’t Zot Eaker!
Sentence him to a dinner of lutefisk instead!
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents
The part that pertains to Ted Cruz is here:
“A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth IF...
One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is before November 14, 1986 but after October 10, 1952 AND
The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14th birthday.”
I like Ted Cruz, but this is silliness.
This is called Argument by assertion. It doesn't really work, unless you have the knee-pad media behind you.
I don't see that Obama's particular situation has any bearing on that of Cruz, which, like i said, is pretty simple, no matter how folks try to muddy it up with mile-long posts.
Actually, it has everything to do with Obama's situation. The crux of the argument against him is that his birth certificate is fraudulent and he wasn't born in Hawaii. If that's the case, he's not a natural born citizen (although according to US law at the time, it's even questionable if he is a US citizen at all, unless he was naturalized later).
The people questioning Cruz appear to be a subset of those questioning Obama. Some of the others may have abandoned their previous position in favor of Cruz, because they figure it's a moot point now. Or they may have done so for ideological reasons.
But, there won't be people searching through posting histories and determining if someone opposed Obama and are not supporting Cruz. Instead, they'll be asking: why did you oppose Obama on NBC grounds, and not Cruz?
If Cruz goes down this path, he has to be ready to answer this question. And he'll have to throw a lot of people under the bus: CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S.
There were plenty of attempts to educate Millie about this issue. I myself have posted the CATO link to her, more than once.
I've read it, and I thought it was interesting. And maybe she read it. But, has it ever occurred to you that she just doesn't agree with it? I like the CATO Institute and Ilya Shapiro, but they aren't the last word on the subject.
Claiming that settles the issue isn't much different than the claim that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is being caused by man. First, it's a tortured statistic, and second -- consensus doesn't prove anything.
And you're surprised that she got banned?
Honestly, I am. I thought Jim was above that.
Come on! I don’t want to kill the guy.
No, it's an argument backed up by the simple truth.
"Actually, it has everything to do with Obama's situation. The crux of the argument against him is that his birth certificate is fraudulent and he wasn't born in Hawaii. If that's the case, he's not a natural born citizen (although according to US law at the time, it's even questionable if he is a US citizen at all, unless he was naturalized later)."
All of which has nothing to do with Ted Cruz. Was Cruz ever naturalized? No. Therefore, he's natural born.
"The people questioning Cruz appear to be a subset of those questioning Obama. Some of the others may have abandoned their previous position in favor of Cruz, because they figure it's a moot point now. Or they may have done so for ideological reasons.
I don't know about any of that; I really haven't kept up with the birther threads. Well, that's not exactly true.....one of them got pretty funny recently, and I read that one.
"But, there won't be people searching through posting histories and determining if someone opposed Obama and are not supporting Cruz. Instead, they'll be asking: why did you oppose Obama on NBC grounds, and not Cruz?
If Cruz goes down this path, he has to be ready to answer this question. And he'll have to throw a lot of people under the bus: CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S."
Well, then, I guess we should get good and scared and not do anything to provoke the left and their lapdog press. Forget Cruz; maybe we can find a nice mild-mannered candidate like Romney. /S
"I've read it, and I thought it was interesting. And maybe she read it. But, has it ever occurred to you that she just doesn't agree with it? I like the CATO Institute and Ilya Shapiro, but they aren't the last word on the subject."
They don't have to be; here's another link for you. As for Millie, it wasn't my call, so it doesn't matter what I think. Bottom line: she was warned and chose to ignore it.
Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born In Canada And Still Become President of the U.S.
"Claiming that settles the issue isn't much different than the claim that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is being caused by man. First, it's a tortured statistic, and second -- consensus doesn't prove anything."
Global warming is a hoax and is not backed up by fact. Ted Cruz's NBC status is backed up by fact. Do you get that?
"Honestly, I am. I thought Jim was above that."
Well, if you're going to talk about him behind his back, don't you think you should ping him?
My grandson was born in London to an English mother and a US Citizen father. His American passport as a US citizen was issued that day as he was a US Citizen at the moment of his birth. (He is also an English citizen.) That is the same exact situation as Cruz's birth. He was born to a US Citizen in Canada so he was a US citizen the moment of his birth. Neither Cruz nor my grandson had to be naturalized as they were US Citizens the moment they were born.
I'm not siding with anyone, and if I'm trying to help anyone, it's conservatives.
I've already voted for Ted Cruz twice, and given the opportunity, I'd vote for him again. If that makes me a hypocrite, then I'll live with it -- because I think we need leadership from someone with his views.
But, I don't think Argument by assertion is going to satisfy the people on both sides of the aisle that are opposed to Ted Cruz. If you want him to succeed, then you have to be prepared for the inevitable blowback, and prepare a cogent response.
Democrats don't "play fair". Neither does the GOP establishment. They looked the other way for Obama, but I doubt they will do the same for Ted.
Arnold Schwarzenegger would LOVE to run for president but he doesn’t run because he knows that he would be ruled ineligible due to being naturalized.
Under the ballot challenge laws in each state, in 2012 alone Obama was challenged 52 times LEGALLY, not by popularity, in 22 states plus in the District of Columbia as to his eligibility to be on the ballot. No judge or state election board ruled him to be ineligible.
Senator Cruz would most likely face similar challenges.
Barack Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, submitted a copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate in the famous “trial on the merits” in the four Georgia ballot challenges. Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili ruled that Obama was eligible. Here’s a brief excerpt from that ruling: Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).” February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Obama’s attorney J. Scott Tepper has also submitted a copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate and a Certified Letter of Verification for it from the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the State of Hawaii for U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate in the Mississippi Obama ballot challenge. Although the birth certificate and the letter of verification were submitted on June 6, 2012, Judge Wingate has not yet ruled on their probative value as evidence.
Plaintiiffs’ attorney Orly Taitz also submitted a copy of the whitehouse.gov image of Obama birth certificate for Judge Wingate. She claims that it is a forgery.
You can view J. Scott Tepper’s Obama birth certificate exhibits on pages 11 & 12 at the following link. http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/96289285
Finally, the Alabama Democratic Party submitted a copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate in their Amicus Brief for the Alabama Supreme Court in the Alabama ballot challenge, McInnish, Goode v. Chapman.
You obviously didn’t check Arizona and Kansas among your ten states. The Republican Secretaries of State in those states, Ken Bennett in Arizona and Kris Kobach in Kansas both required Certified Letters of Verification from the state of Hawaii’s Registrar of Vital Statistics before they would clear Obama for their states’ ballots.
http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604
And still you persist with “argument of assertion”, even though you’ve been shown the facts about Ted Cruz’s NBC status.
Why?
Did you check out that link from the Atlantic?
Which is the definition of "argument by assertion". It's true "because you said so".
Was Cruz ever naturalized? No. Therefore, he's natural born.
This is called a False dilemma. It attempts to restrict the choices to two, and eliminate any others.
They don't have to be; here's another link for you.
An interesting article, thank you. I had seen the CRS document from another source, though. The thing I noticed before: the CRS sidestepped an important issue: that the meaning of "natural-born", in the context of Presidential eligibility, has never been been considered by the Supreme Court (or even a Court of Appeals). Congress enacted a statute for the benefit McCain, but even that hasn't been tested above a district court.
All other challenges have been dismissed due to "lack of remedy" or "lack of standing".
Global warming is a hoax and is not backed up by fact. Ted Cruz's NBC status is backed up by fact. Do you get that?
The existence (or lack) of anthropogenic global warning is largely opinion, not fact. There are "facts", but they are not exact (outside the past few decades), and subject to interpretation. Most of the disagreement is about interpretation.
What constitutes a national born citizen (Cruz, Obama, or anyone else) is also backed up by opinions. There is your opinion, my opinion, court opinions, etc. The important ones are court opinions, and there are even disagreements among them. But as I noted above, the ultimate Court has yet to rule on the specific issue. And even then, they have been known to get it wrong and reverse themselves later.
Well, if you're going to talk about him behind his back, don't you think you should ping him?
You asked me if I was surprised that someone got banned, and I said that I was. This is a public conversation, and anyone that wants to read it is welcome to do so. But, if you feel compelled to tattle on me, then let your conscience be your guide.
You've shown me many opinions. Did you read my link about what constitutes an "argument by assertion"?
You might also find Argumentum ad populum interesting.
Did you check out that link from the Atlantic?
I did, and as I posted above: I found it interesting, and had seen the CRS document from another source. It's worth discussing, but I don't think it's the slam-dunk you apparently believe it is.
But, I'm open to reading arguments from both sides. However, don't think that threatening with being banned is going to convince me.
Unbelievable.
It's like talking to a tree.
"This is called a False dilemma. It attempts to restrict the choices to two, and eliminate any others."
Folks like you would rather over-intellectualize something to death rather than understand it CAN be simple and straightforward. It's too easy that way, right? There are too many Latin phrases to pull out and throw around.
I don't have the patience for you. Believe what you want.
Actually, that's a very good analogy.
You are expecting me to be swayed to your viewpoint by coercion and belittlement.
But, when you act like that, you might as well be talking to a tree. It's not an effective way to make your point, and it's certainly not an effective way to convince someone the merits of your argument.
I don't have the patience for you.
Have a nice day, too. :-)
a certified letter is not the same as submitting the documents themselves. if you think so, try that the next time a cop pulls you over and asks for your license.
without supporting documentation, the letter is worthless. this would not have been an issue if the scanned pdf released by 0bama wasn’t such a bad forgery. the original was supposedly in the office in hawaii. there is no reason Alvin Onaka couldn’t scan the document and send it instead of a letter... unless it didn’t exist.
of interest in the kansas filing would be that Jill Nagamine submitted and presented as true the scanned birth certificate we’ve all seen. why would she reference the exact same scanned document if the original was in her office? by offering this scanned image as true, she is then involved in the fraud and coverup.
by not submitting these scanned images as an actual birth certificate, 0bama avoids the possibility of felony perjury charges.
again, 0bama has not submitted his ‘birth certificate’ to any federal office as authentic
But, if you want to save yourself some time, you might invest a little time in reading how we in America have selected our presidents without any judicial screening process. You may not like our system, but it works. And, I think it works better without judges picking the candidates.
Ignore anything you want. Confuse yourself all you want. Create shrines to dead Swiss philosophers like Vattel if you want. But, if you want to beat Ted Cruz (or any other candidate), you're going to have to make your "qualifications pitch" to the voters. And, if the voters disagree with your convoluted pitch, you're out of luck.
This is America, not Iran.
Ted Cruz 2016
Thanks, you've made a a good argument. I'm not sure the collective wisdom of the voters is that good (after all, it gave us two years of Obama), but I understand your point: that it isn't the place of a judge to decide whether a candidate is eligible.
However, it is a bit of a slippery slope. Are all eligibility questions moot? What about all the other elected positions, federal, state, and local?
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.