Let's Put an End to this Birther Nonsense about Ted Cruz

Red State ^ | January 19, 2016 | Jake from Red State

[TheCipher]

I would NOT be surprised that , if elected, Trump, along with Sheriff Arpaio brought forth the evidence so as to make it VERY EASY to overturn EVERY SINGLE executive order written by Obozo.

They don't need any evidence to do that. An incoming president can invalidate any executive order with a stroke of the pen.

[jospehm20]

Cruz was a Canadian citizen less than two years ago. I do not think that a candidate holding citizenship from another country until he was over 40 years old and already in the US Senate is what the founders had in mind as somebody qualified to be President. There are many high positions in our government that Cruz would be very qualified for and great in but being President is not one of them. I keep hearing how smart Cruz is but I just can’t square that with him not seeing this coming and doing more to get in front of it years ago. If I had known all of what I know now about his situation earlier I would not have donated a penny to his campaign. He simply is not a NBC and qualified to be President in my view.

[Sun]

But the bottom line still is that Sen. Cruz IS a Natural Born Citizen:

“..The law in effect then, and now, made Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen at birth.”

more: http://nation.foxnews.com/sen-ted-cruz/2013/03/11/spokesman-senator-cruz-us-citizen-birth

Isn’t sad, that with all that’s going on in the world, Trump has us talking about this?

[Praxeologue]

But Donald Trump on TeeVee said it’s important, so it must be.

[Cboldt]

-- 'naturalization act' of 1790 states

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

This would seem to be an act which 'naturalize someone who meets these specific requirements into the status of NBC- not just into `naturalized citizenship' such as an illegal alien would be naturalized' --

You may notice that the words "shall be considered as" have been emphasized. Anybody who tells you that the Act is a definition is misleading you. Congress did so deliberately (misled you). In the ordinary use of the English language, the phrase "shall be considered as" is as assignment of pretend.

There is a social security regulation that says, essentially, a person up to the age of 22 shall be considered as a child. That doesn't mean a person is in fact a child until they reach the age of 22, it means that the law will play make believe. This is called "legal fiction," and it is so common in statutory law, so as to be unremarkable.

If we look at only the 1790 law, and admit the fact (and it is a fact) that "shall be considered as" is legal fiction, then what the founders said about the subject, in the 1790 act, was this:

the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States are not natural born citizens, but for purposes of law, we will pretend they are

The Act, on its face, disproves the contention that Cruz is an NBC. It doesn't help his case, it demolishes it!

-- And the counter argument, the one trump is making, was that both parents would need to be citizens ... --

The statute is ambiguous as to one or both parents, but it doesn't matter. When you grok what the 1790 Act says, actually in plain English, when you grok that is expressly excludes what is described (children born abroad) from the conclusion (NBC), then it doesn't matter if the child had one parent, two parents, three parents (donor sperm), four parents (donor sperm and donor egg), or even zero parents (test tube baby).

-- I'm not sure how the justices argued away this act In the Bellei case in order to strip him of his citizenship --

The legal fiction created by this act was repealed in 1795. The justices didn't have to argue it away, and plus, Bellei is, say the justices, naturalized.

At this point, many people deploy "magic thinking" and relapse into believing that a person can be "natural" (which is better thought of as "under the constitution") and naturalized (which is better thought of as "NOT under the constitution, but under Act of Congress") at the same time. They want to believe, so badly, that a person born abroad of a citizen parent is an NBC, that they become, on this point, literally kooks.

It's not an issue in real life. Just these people want to preserve the dream that their child can grow up to be president. The kids are citizens, but they are not 100% American at birth. A person born in Canada of a Cuban father and US Mother is not 100% American at birth. It's not their fault. They may turn into the best advocate for America, but they were born mixed. We the people can abandon the constitution via stupidity. Hell, I think we have.

[samtheman]

At this point, many people deploy “magic thinking” and relapse into believing that a person can be “natural” (which is better thought of as “under the constitution”) and naturalized (which is better thought of as “NOT under the constitution, but under Act of Congress”) at the same time. They want to believe, so badly, that a person born abroad of a citizen parent is an NBC, that they become, on this point, literally kooks.

---

yup

[Cboldt]

-- There is no controlling authority on the question of what constitutes a natural born citizen under Article II, Sec. 1 --

So what?

Now, your first reaction is probably wonder. We don't need to have a case that says what NBC "is," we can use a case that says what NBC "isn't," if the circumstances of Cruz birth fits the pattern of that case.

And there is a case that nearly exactly fits Cruz's condition. Child born abroad of one citizen parent, where the citizen parent met all the conditions prescribed in a Act of Congress, and the child was made a citizen, at birth, solely by the operation of an Act of Congress.

This (and the fact that Cruz is not NBC) is settled law, and those who stridently hold otherwise, who know the Bellei case, are guilty of misleading a gullible public.

I don't know if you are one of those people, but my spidey senses say you are.

[Cboldt]

I want to believe that my lottery ticket is a winner, too. It might be.

Really, this argument is so emotional, due to attachment to a dream, a wish. I mean, if I lose my lottery ticket, I've probably lost a buck or two, ten bucks if three numbers matched.

The people will toss the constitution, just to preserve a dream that their lottery ticket is the winner.

[samtheman]

Yes. Very well said.

And by the way, have you seen this. You really have to watch the whole thing:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3385568/posts

[VideoDoctor]

An incoming president can invalidate any executive order with a stroke of the pen.

Do you THINK when you read.

I said "so as to make it VERY EASY to overturn EVERY SINGLE executive order written by Obozo."

EASY, as in very POPULAR, because he's openly proven to be a fraud.

Then followed by indictment for fooling the public.

In politics, it's BEST to have the people on your side, and in your favor, when you go after someone.

That's where Trump's at currently.

[LucyT]

jospehm20 wrote:

""Cruz was a Canadian citizen less than two years ago. I do not think that a candidate holding citizenship from another country until he was over 40 years old and already in the US Senate is what the founders had in mind as somebody qualified to be President. There are many high positions in our government that Cruz would be very qualified for and great in but being President is not one of them.

""I keep hearing how smart Cruz is but I just can't square that with him not seeing this coming and doing more to get in front of it years ago. - If I had known all of what I know now about his situation earlier I would not have donated a penny to his campaign. - He simply is not a NBC and qualified to be President in my view.""

[null and void]

Constitutional Eligibility

[null and void]

Uhhh, khakis...

[melancholy]

Welcome back, Lucyt. You were missed.

IMO, at least, anyone who stood fast against 0b0z0*s NBC status or lack thereof, assuming that 0b0z0t0llah*s American mother was his real mother and that he was born on USA soil, should have second thoughts about a worse case of someone who was born abroad.

No two ways about it.

[melancholy]

Should have second thoughts-————> should NOT have second thoughts...

[hoosiermama]

May be correct it I will wait for the SCOTUS decision Up to now it’s just opinion. It needs to be “settled law”

[null and void]

If the son of a Cuban born in Canada to an American mother is a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) of the United States our Constitution is dead. No way in hell the founders would consider such a child an NBC. In fact they would not have even consider the child an American citizen!

The Founding Fathers intended that for that one singular position, The President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of it's military, the holder of that position must be free of any hint of divided loyalties.

A dual citizen at birth (Is he a citizen of the birth country Canada? A citizen of Cuba through his father's citizenship? A citizen of America through his mother? or does he divide his loyalties in thirds?) would be subject to opposition party attack no matter what he did or didn't do with respect to a foreign crisis.

What would the Cuban Missile Crisis have looked like if Kennedy's father was Cuban?

[TheCipher]

Do you THINK when you read.

Do you THINK when you write ? VERY EASY could be interpreted in 2 ways. With what was posted in the rest of your post, it could be interpreted to mean NOT DIFFICULT because they would have evidence to show he was not eligible in the first place, thus invalidating his executive orders. If you wanted to imply popular, you should have either said that or put on the end of the sentence "because he's openly proven to be a fraud"

[VideoDoctor]

Hey!.. you vote your conscience and I'll vote mine.

END of discussion.

[TheCipher]

?

What does this have to do about voting ( by the way, I am for Trump ) ? I think you misunderstood me. The way I interpreted it ( mistakenly ) was as I told you. Now I have seen many people on other posts that think executive orders are written in stone. Never having talked to you before, I thought you fell into that category with the way I interpreted what you said. I was just informing you ( now I know you didn't need informing ) that they aren't written in stone and can be whisked away by the next president.