Banned at Breitbart

[Happy Rain]

Banned by Breitbart

[Caipirabob]

What were the posts involved? Honestly, I’m disgusted with attacks between Cruz and Trump supporters. The democrats are laughing their butts off while we destroy the two strongest candidates. Yes, we can question things but we should steer clear of outright destroying people.

[McGruff]

Maybe you should take it as a sign.

[arthurus]

Levin with all his scholarship, and I believe him to be the foremost Constitutional scholar in the public eye, has fudged his argument. He studiously avoids the Natural Born part of the clause in the Constitution and proves that Cruz is a Citizen, which never needed proof for anyone but then ignores that natural born part. I have never heard Levin to be anything but absolutely straight forward before and I am appalled. I waited for him to show me the error of my own take on the Natural Born clause but he avoids that which leads me to believe that I am right.

[wkg]

“There is no such thing as Naturalized At Birth. You are either natural born or naturalized later in life.”

Bellei was not “born . . . in the United States,” but he was, constitutionally speaking, “naturalized in the United States.” Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

[WhiskeyX]

“There is no such thing as Naturalized At Birth. You are either natural born or naturalized later in life.”

I’m getting really sick and tired of people like you coming on here to make these abysmally stupid and ignorant lies. Try reading the laws and stop denying them:

66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952

TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization

NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . .
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.

The equivalent present day statute is:

U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY. Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY. Subchapter III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization. § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ... (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.

“Statutory US law defines citizenship not your personal opinions.”

It is yourself who is throwing around your ignorant and baseless opinions in denial of the documented laws we have presented in exhaustive detail. As a matter of Constitutional law the Constitution granted Congress the enumerated power to “establish an uniform Rule of naturalization” and nothing more. Congress has no power to grant citizenship to anyone other than an alien who needs to be naturalized into a citizen at birth and after birth. Ted Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship by the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 cited above. It is a law for naturalization of aliens, including the naturalization of alien born children at birth who have an U.S. parent. “(5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents . . . .”

If Ted Cruz had been born in 1916, he would not even have been granted U.S. citizenship at birth. To acquire U.S. citizenship, he would have had to go through the procedure waiting for the quota to permit him to apply for naturalization as the immigrant child of alien parents. A natural born citizen of the U.S. did not have that problem in 1916 or today.

[Flick Lives]

There is a simple solution to this predicament. We take over Canada.

[arthurus]

Unfortunately he is the only candidate with that very firm understanding and hold on the Constitution. I say unfortunately because he doesn’t qualify as Natural Born. The NB clause is to screen out candidates with possible loyalties to other nations and other nationalities. The reality, though is that the Natural Born clause has no application any more, not since the accession of Obama. Much as it is all denied by just about every public figure it is pretty much accepted that he is not NBC and maybe not even C. At some point after he has left office or has declined to leave office I expect he will proudly and defiantly declare his Religion and Nationality and they will shock the nation even as they are what most people in the nation have surmised.

[Axeslinger]

Ok, here’s the thing. The founders left the phrase “natural born citizen” completely undefined. However U.S. Immigration defines citizenship thus:

“What types of citizenship are there?

There are two types of citizenship:
1. Citizenship from birth
2. Citizenship through naturalization

A person may derive citizenship from birth in one of two ways:
1. Birth in the United States
2. Birth outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent(s)”
https://my.uscis.gov/helpcenter/article/what-types-of-citizenship-are-there

I didn’t alter it, didn’t even tweak it. There are only two types of citizens...
Natural and naturalized. That’s it. That’s all that has been codified in law or precedent. Everything else is just smoke blown by people who are either terrified of him or who despise him.

So can we maybe all just grow up?

[zzeeman]

Yes, he has blown his credibility with a LOT of listeners. He has become almost unhinged over this topic. He never attempts to make a rational argument about it, but falls back on using a stream of logical fallacies to try to swat the issue away. As a long-time listener and reader of his books, I am very disappointed.

[PJBankard]

First, US Military Bases (not all) and Embassies in foreign countries are considered US sovereign land. The same applies to foreign countries embassies within the US, it is part of the agreement when establishing the embassy. So US military personnel or Ambassadors that have a child overseas on a US military installation (not all) or at an Embassy would be considered U.S. Citizens as if they were born here in the States.

A tourist who is a U.S. Citizen in a foreign country is required by statutes/law to report the birth to the U.S. Embassy/Consulate. This citizenship is granted by statute. Failure to file the required documents and/or failure to meet the requirements within the statutes could prevent the child from being recognized by the U.S. as a Citizen, and the child would have to become naturalized as a foreigner, albeit this is unlikely as a U.S. Citizen on vacation would likely meet all necessary requirements.

[Oklahoma]

The law at the time of his birth applies, not 1916 or 1952. You Trump cultists selectively pick and choose old or non-applying statutes and then try to pass it off as current.

Go ahead and believe the courts are going to rule on this. They have run from this for years. Trump, Cruz and Rubio are all natural born citizens and their chances of being president depend on the voters not judges.

[deport]

I vote February 20 (SC)

****************

Maybe you ought to stay local to the state and help you candidate. Edward seems to need
the help in SC as he’s showing a 14 point deficit in at least one post debate poll.

[Hugin]

So the Obama administration is heard from. But they can’t settle it either. Only the courts can. I suspect Trump will have it wrapped up by early March and the argument will be moot until someone else of questionable eligibility runs again, and we can have the whole delightful argument all over again.

If by some remote chance Cruz were nominated, it would be a different story. Some Secretary of State (or more than one) in a Democrat state would refuse to put Cruz on the ballot, citing the eligibility question. Then Cruz would have to sue to be put on. Either it would go the SCOTUS, or a lower court would rule on it and SCOTUS would let it stand. Then it might be settled, at least for a time.

[zzeeman]

The problem that people have understanding this is that the words "naturalize" and "naturalization" have come to mean a specific act in common language, i.e., the voluntary proactive steps that people use to remedy their alien status. People need to understand that naturalization as a legal and Constitutional concept has a broader definition, that includes all forms of collective naturalization as well.

Collective naturalization includes citizenship that is granted by statute, as well as via treaty (uncommon at the present time).

Citizenship at birth, granted by statute, is naturalized citizenship.

[MamaTexan]

So?

I made a single comment on rightscoop about how the state of Texas was apparently teaching us *swamp theories* during high school government class, and I got banned.

[Duchess47]

In the march to a one world government, it is necessary to destroy our borders and to demean our constitution.

Ted and Heidi Cruz are soldiers in this march, cogs in the wheel. Cruz will continue the work that has been started under the past few presidents and have a million excuses as to why he cannot perform as he stated he would.

If you even listen to his speeches he does not address except in passing the border or trade or the economy or jobs. He harangues his listeners with the current hot buttons of conservative Christians - religious liberty, planned parenthood, gun rights.

If we do not address the border and the economy immediately nothing else will matter. There will be no religious liberty in a country filled with muslims. Ending government support of planned parenthood is one thing, not even a dictator can change minds of the people who support it.

We all participated in the destruction of the constitution when we allowed Obama to run and be elected. By allowing Cruz now to run, we have thrown up our hands and admitted that we really don’t have any faith or belief in our constitution anymore. If we want our country back, for it to survive, we have to put our foot down and say no more. Like it or not, we have to.

[Hugin]

There’s no question about Trump. Cruz floating the notion that both parents must be natural born citizen for the child to be one is absurd on the face of it. If he were right, and Trump wasn’t, then his children couldn’t be NBC his grandchildren aren’t, ad infinitum. Nobody with any immigrant ancestor, no matter how far back could ever be considered NBC. Cruz threw that in as a red herring to divert attention from the real argument.

[deport]

What are the laws in place at the time of Edward’s birth? Does his Cuban father and his
being born in another county make Edward a US citizen because of his mother’s heritage?
Lots of arguments can be raised by both sides.

[WhiskeyX]

That’s right, but try and get these hardheads to stop following the paid political liars like the children of Hamlin or like sheep being herded off of a high cliff. What the American education system has been turning out the past 50 years is absolutely appalling. They can’t even think their way out of an escalator!

[Axeslinger]

My understanding and what research I’ve done (point is...take it for what it’s worth) is that definition has been around for as long as there’s been an immigration dept. So, not Obama admin thing.