If Cruz is Eligible Because His Mom Was a U.S. Citizen Then so is Obama

For all the arguments that went on for years on this web site, talk radio and many other sites about Obama's eligibility.... If Cruz is eligible because his mom was a U.S. Citizen, then so is Obama because his mom was a U.S. Citizen.... Just saying!

Wow you have to go all the way back to 1952 immigration laws!

The date at the top of the State Department document I linked (7 FAM 1130) is 7-08-2014. Which you might have noticed, had you read it.

1). There have been a lot of immigration laws since 1952, and many if not all ARE RETROACTIVE.
2). We do not know for sure if the 1952 immigration law was still the exact same in August of 1961? Good luck finding that.

Anyone can find that information in the State Department document I linked, 7 FAM 1130.

Again, you did not read the document.

7 FAM 1131.1-2 Applicable Statute
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
The law applicable in the case of a person born abroad who claims citizenship is the law in effect when the person was born, unless a later law applies retroactively to persons who had not already become citizens. Instructions in 7 FAM 1130 will note when a law is retroactive.

In other words, changes to the law will be noted IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENT I LINKED.

Here's the full text of 7 FAM 1133.2-2:

7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
(CT:CON-317; 12-08-2009 a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period. As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301.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 least 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.

“Evidence is not fact.”

You have joined the Bill Clinton school of disbarred lawyers arguing what the meaning of is is and sex is and is not. Courts of law rely upon evidence to establish PRESUMED facts to one of many standards of evidence deemed to meet a legal burden of proof. For the purposes of adjudicating a legal dispute, evidence is the basis used to presume what the facts of the case are whether or not the evidence is sufficient to accurately represent the actual fact/s. First, the Obama birth Certificates presented to the public are actual forgeries, whether or not any court of law chooses to presume they are genuine. Even if the court of law chooses to presume one of the forged birth certificates is a genuine birth certificate, the coding on the birth certificate indicates the birth registration form was not certified as being true and correct by an official with the authority to do so. Without that official certification by the State of Hawaii official, the birth certificate can not be used to assert a presumption that a required burden of proof regarding the facts of the birth claimed in the form has been met in accordance with the laws of the State of Hawaii or Federal law. In other words, the birth certificate is a forgery, and even if not recognized as a forgery, the information on the document indicates it is an unconfirmed and uncertified claim which does not meet the legal burden of proof to establish a LEGAL burden of proof has been met to establish a legal presumption of accuracy.

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.