Posted on 01/09/2016 4:16:21 PM PST by VinL
Donald Trump intensified his criticism of Ted Cruz at two Iowa campaign rallies on Saturday, urging voters to reject the Texas senator by saying his Canadian birth raises serious questions about his eligibility to become president.
"He was born in Canada. I guess his parents voted in Canada," Trump said at an afternoon rally in Clear Lake. "So if you were born in Canada, immediately it's a little bit of a problem."
Trump added: "You cannot put somebody there that's gonna go in ... he's going to be immediately sued."
Earlier Saturday, Trump said at a rally in Ottumwa that Cruz "has to straighten out his problems," a veiled reference to the so-called "birther" issue. But he declined to elaborate further, saying, "We'll discuss that later."
Cruz, however, is a naturally-born U.S. citizen, and most legal experts agree that he is qualified to be commander-in-chief.
But recently, he has had to aggressively push back on questions pushed from Trump about his eligibility for the presidency. He renounced his dual Canadian citizenship in 2014, and on Friday, Cruz's campaign shared with the conservative website Breitbart a copy of his mother's birth certificate showing her born in the United States.
I believe that is a straight forward reading of the relevant laws, at least insofar as it relates to Donald himself. I'm not sure about grandchildren, but you may be right.
Trump was born of two American citizens, on American soil. As such, his NBC status could never come into question. As such, there is no question as to Trump's NBC status, under any argument.
Once again, at the risk of being over redundant, if that's possible, I have NEVER argued that Donald is not a Natural Born Citizen. Clearly he is, as you say, under any argument. I have never denied that and in fact I have affirmed it over and over on this thread.
So if you want to assail my position, you are welcome, but please don't accuse me of promoting a notion I have never had any part of.
An American court would recognize Mrs. Trump as an American citizen first after her naturalization took place. That is settled American law.
Of course. But that has never been an issue for me.
You raised a question due to Trump's mother being born a citizen of Britain, and passing her British nationality to Trump, thus requiring him to renounce it.
If that were operative, then every British citizen who was ever naturalized in America and became an American citizen under American law, would then have to apply to the British Home secretary to make their American citizenship valid.
Not exactly. Their American citizenship would obviously be valid, especially where it counts, in the USA. What is also true and the single point I have made repeatedly is that under BRITISH law and practice such individuals continue to be British nationals as far as Britain is concerned. Individuals who were British subjects who become naturalized citizens of the United States and who do not want to maintain dual nationality MUST renounce their citizenship to the Home Secretary. May I note hear again that this has NOTHING to do with US law regarding nationalization, citizenship or as far as I know any other matter. This is purely a British domestic issue.
American naturalization law has no such requirement.
Of course not. It has nothing to do with American naturalization law.
It is true that the law does contain such a limitation. From what I have read there are certain Brits that might make that argument, but I'd argue back that the bar has never been that high in the first place. Trump ought to clear it easily.
You think so? You need to read the law.
And by the way, don't confuse yourself by focusing on American law. American law has no effect on the Brits.That's why they specifically do NOT RECOGNIZE any renunciation of previous citizenship included in the American naturalization process:
All categories of British nationality can be renounced by a declaration made to the Home Secretary. A person ceases to be a British national on the date the Home Secretary registers the declaration of renunciation. If a declaration is registered in the expectation of acquiring another citizenship but one is not acquired within six months of the registration, it does not take effect and the person remains a British national.
Renunciations made to other authorities (such as the general renunciation made as part of the US naturalization ceremony) are not recognized by the UK. The forms must be sent through the UK Border Agency's citizenship renunciation process.
Get it yet?
Your problem is that you keep repeating this junk when it has been debunked many times. You don't get points for obtuseness, you know.
Again, the Democrats don't have to go full force on Cruz about this because Trump and other Republicans will do it for them.
It's a dead issue now. Even if Cruz would accept, which I've always doubted, having made it clear he doubts Cruz's eligibility Trump would have a hard time explaining why he suddenly decided that now he was.
Clearly stating you doubt his eligibility for the office is a strange way to do it. And regardless of what Cruz said or produced the conspiracy theories would never be put to rest. Trump can't un-ring the bell, even if he wanted to. And I don't think he does. He isn't vetting Cruz for the second spot. He's trying to damage him so he doesn't threaten Trump for the nomination.
Excuse me, I don’t see any indication that Trump is trying to take anything back. First off a reporter asks him, and he responds, secondly Trump has been tipped off that this going to be an issue that will be taken up in the debates ie how is that you challenge Obama’s eligibility and not your VP candidate or republican opponent, thirdly the dems were going to bring it up anyway if Cruz is the guy, fourth, Trump is not the only republican challenging it.
So, what’s your point?
No he isn't. If anything he's doubling down.
Trump has been tipped off that this going to be an issue that will be taken up in the debates
Trump has been making clear he doesn't think Cruz is eligible since last March at least, maybe earlier, so the debates don't enter into it. He had no need to be tipped off on anything; this a deliberate attempt to derail his closest opponent.
the dems were going to bring it up anyway if Cruz is the guy
The Dems don't need to, and never did. They have Trump and other Republicans to do it for them.
Trump is not the only republican challenging it.
Just the most prominent one, and the only candidate. And as I've been saying there are a lot of Republicans willing to do the Democrats dirty work and try and damage Cruz as a candidate.
Thank you
The confusion here is that the article cited by you references to an “article” by Tribe but nowhere is there a link to that article. The information about Tribe not saying one way or another if Cruz is NBC comes from a source where you can actually hear an entire interview with Tribe and he never says. Our back and forth are based on 2 different sources. I would like to read Tribe’s actual article not an excerpt from another source.
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/trump-gives-cruz-legal-advice-on-citizenship-598149699969
Tribe’s remarks are summarized as the majority of legal scolars find Cruz to be NBC, he finds Cruz to be NBC, but the issue hasn’t been decided by SCOTUS.
All I have asked is to be given a direct link to the article where Tribe says Cruz is NBC as VinL states. Can’t find on google and you did not offer it. All I have heard is his own words on an interview which does not state that
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/trump-gives-cruz-legal-advice-on-citizenship-598149699969
trump’s British nationality is not idiocy. It IS idiotic to think that his possible dual nationality has anything to do with American law or his eligibility to be president. Just as it’s idiocy to think the same in the case of Sen. Cruz.
Of course, the greater idiocy is Republicans voting for a faux conservative like trump.
I don’t have a problem with the word dominion. I’ve done a little bit of reading on Canada during the dominion period, and I’ve found the evolution of Canada from a group of disparate British colonies to a single, very large, independent nation fascinating. Here’s a historical tidbit I learned. The Canadian dollar came into being before the united nation of Canada did.
My note on the word dominion was just to notice the fact that your historical knowledge was many, many decades out of date. You need textbooks printed after 1930.
Tribe didn't made that claim. What Tribe did was offer his opinion that Cruz is NBC, say that most legal scholars have the same opinion (this is true), and then state the non-contentious assertion that SCOTUS has not decided a case (necessarily a presidential eligibility case) where the outcome hinged on NBC status.
SCOTUS has said that citizens who obtain citizenship by operation of statute are naturalized, even when the statute confers citizenship at birth without a naturalization proceeding.
That would be a very, very low bar. *snicker*
You still miss my request. He did not say that in the interview. So WHERE are you getting his comment?! If Tribe did say he offered that opinion it would have to be some place...WHERE.
We’re looking at the same interview, and my memory was telling me that Tribe indicated assent with the consensus. I’m watching the interview again, maybe he didn’t say that, and merely gave his opinion that NBC ought to be loosened.
I have watched it 3 times and admit I could have missed it. If you find it could you noted the time on the tape. I don’t say Cruz is not NBC. He meets what I thought was eligibility but I don’t much trust anything in this nutcase world.
-- I don't say Cruz is not NBC. He meets what I thought was eligibility but I don't much trust anything in this nutcase world. --
Hehehehe. Well, I'm convinced beyond all doubt that Cruz is not NBC, based on the fact that his citizenship depends on operation of a statute, and that SCOTUS considers citizenship by statute to be naturalization, even if there is no naturalization process.
BUT - perception trumps reality, and the weight of rhetoric on the subject (Katyal/Clement article, many others, the simple appeal of "citizen at birth without a naturalization process is natural born citizen, not naturalized citizen") comes down in favor of Cruz being NBC.
If he gets enough votes, he'll be seated as president. No court is going to stand in his way, and no court is going to stifle the political process that is going on now.
I have an opinion of Cruz based on his treatment of the issue, but I'm going to keep that to myself.
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.