Whoa!
He wasn't born here.
For later.
not only is TCruz not eligible, he’s OBVIOUSLY not eligible.
if you want to know why, you can find any one of the dozen or so responses i’ve made to these posts.
We haven’t had a good birther thread in a while. Popping my popcorn.
If Cruz catches up to Trump in the polls, Trump will go nuclear about it.
This is the case most widely cited by birthers, and it's bogus. They take a very small portion out of context, that to paraphrase says "some legal scholars argue that citizen at birth is different than NBC", while ignoring that the court immediately followed by stating that there's no need to rule on that because she clearly qualifies in either case. So it's clearly not a precedent.
NO, there is no argument.
If a child is born without the above same circumstances, but is a citizen by statute, is there argument against NBC status?
Yes there is.
Case closed.
NBC is inherent and Natures Law, it needs no statutes.
This article is so full of holes it is not worth the time to dispute it.
That website shills for Obama
Ted Cruz’s mother is a natural born citizen which makes him a natural born citizen.
Apparently having a mother who is a natural born citizen means nothing to those who like to stir the pot of silly.
What is the point of this? Disputing or discussing his eligibility too long has been stated as a reason for removal from the site, by decree. It’s not as if any real challenge to it can happen here, even if the contrary opinion was important enough for McCain, when he was running, to secure a declaration that he is a natural born citizen though born in Panama.
From the Naturalization Act of 1790 (from Wikipedia):
“The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: “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: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
Notice that embedded within this clause is a definition of what the founders considered to be a “natural born citizen” which is “children born of citizens of the United States”.
The only time “natural born citizen” was used in the Constitution — when stipulating requirements to be President.
This Act is well-known, but was but was not mentioned in this article. And, some people claim that an expert is needed to understand it. Of course, the Act has been replaced a number of times; but it contains a definition of what the framers had in mind about the “natural born citizen” requirement.
BFL
Any one know how to ping the Not This S___ Again guy?
Cause this thread is begging for him.
I realize that it’s neither legal nor logical, but my top argument is this:
Dems, you foisted 0vomit on us with no known existing birth certificate and a host of legitimate doubts about his real identity and eligibility (not to mention his utter lack of accomplishments). Now we have a competent, qualified, America-loving candidate with real accomplishments and a demonstrated track record. Up yours.
The citations in this piece are astonishingly misleading. The entire list is completely unsupported by the case law which it purports to rely upon, when it does purport to rely upon. Where it relies upon general assertions they are simply wrong.
The Supreme Court has ruled that every word in the Constitution has meaning.
Natural born citizen is three words. Adding ‘natural’ requires one must be something more than a born citizen.
Of course you can change the meaning just by putting a hyphen between natural and born. Then “natural-born” can be interpreted as nothing more than born a citizen.
Unfortunately for those making that argument, there’s no hyphen between those two words in the Constitution.
But I am watching with interest how many are sticking that hyphen in there to justify their position.
To me and the framers it is all about loyalty to a country other than the U.S. Cruz has a fixable problem. His situation was not explicitly contemplated at the time. His father was given political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out, he then got a green card. I believe that after Ted was born, the father became a citizen of Canada. And later (2005) became a citizen of the U.S. Though it was a torchered path for his father. I believe Ted Cruz’s loyalty to the U.S. is rock solid and that he has no loyalty to Cuba or Canada that would be placed above the U.S. Ted’s father was a legal resident of the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. His mother was a full citizen and the location of birth is irrelevant.
You can reason and debate all you want, but there are some people who simply do not like Ted Cruz, for whatever facts you present they will have an answer. They are entitled.
Personally, I respect him and love his integrity, his tireless efforts (filibuster),his view for our country, his truthfulness (McConnell never said “I didn’t do that),his personal character, the whole package.
But those others are entitled to their opinions.
Ted Cruz was definitely a U.S. citizen at birth.
It is possible for U.S. citizen parents to transmit citizenship to their children depending on when the child was born and when the parents lived in the United States.
If the applicant was born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent:
The child was born between Dec 24, 1952 and Nov 14, 1986, then the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. ten years prior to the applicant’s birth, with five of those years occurring after the parent turned 14.
There were “birther” voices who were making all kinds of wild claims and used embarassing language to do it.
If Cruz or any candidate but Trump associates with those embarassing voices, that candidate will lose votes.
It’s like associating with some of the embarassing voices on illegal immigration. Guilt by association loses a lot more votes than it gains in most cases.