Posted on 01/24/2016 2:17:53 PM PST by Isara
Canada has its roots in British law, it was illogical of you to assume they had no such concept as natural born.
---
And if this Canadian definition is worth quoting, would not it also be worth adopting?
Oh, please. Your conversational tactics are exceedingly foul. You have the arrogance to call someone a dumbass over something you obviously have NO CLUE over, don't have enough humility to even admit you were wrong, then want to imply the my posting of the quote in order to disprove your ignorance has something to do with a desire to adopt Canadian law.
The Founders fought a war to rid themselves of British rule, and anyone who wants to give the federal government the prerogatives of a King can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned.
The groundwork for opening the Office of the presidency to a large part of the foreign population has already been laid by Congressional *research* groups.
True, that is a problem.
He also was a Canadian citizen and could have been a Cuban citizen if he wanted.
If one can be anything other than a US citizen at birth, one cannot be a natural born citizen
The funny thing is that half Cruz’s supporters went after Obama being born in Kenya. Which was legit concern, but now they do not care that Cruz was born in Canada and had duel citizenship up til 15 months ago. They defend it by trying to say Cruz’s mom is American. As if Obama’s mom was not even though she was born in Kansas.
Washington....and John Adams, George Clinton, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr....the candidates for the first election were ALL born in the United States.
In fact, they were all British Subjects at birth. That's where the all important oath came into play and the fact that all were patriots.
Always wondered why Alexander Hamilton was not in the mix.
Easy...born in the West Indies.
Makes him perfect for that North American Union thing.
“He knows that’s a false statement, but he doesn’t appear to care very much.”
So you know that better than him? Just checking on your constitutional knowledge that we don’t know.
Absolutely not so. You need to study up. So-called dual citizenship does not and cannot have anything to do with natural born citizenship since it is out of the control of the united States who other countries consider their citizens.
No court anywhere in the United States would countenance such a thing for even a moment.
There are dozens of examples Limbaugh could have used where Trump demonstrated during this campaign that he does not think or approach problems in conservative terms let alone understand them and is unable to bring them up.. But views challanges in a very personal way that could reveal any inner convictions he could have but clearly does not.
From the campaign begining with the first debate. His legiirimate battles with Fox and Kelly.and her misogyny complaint Trump goes on CNN following the debate to complain about his treatment .Alas where he could have cited how the press abused Palin as well as other conservatives. Instead must personnaly attack Kelly and brings up Kellys body functions thus confirms her assertions . .
Trumps revealing exchange with campaign disrupter and un official spokesman for the Mexican government Jorge Ramos (Univision). who has dual citizenship,.which should have but did not, show any conviction on his pronouuncements about Mexico and its relationship with US.
Here Trump could have demanded to know from him If he believes Mexico has legitimate claim to American states ,as well as bring up Mexican treatment of illegals. Then ask why should the US permit land ownership when legal American retirees cannot own land in their own name or vote there.Then boot his buttocks out of there.
Instead what does he do ? Kisses up to him and lets him go .The way the Mexicans are treating Americans reciprocity should be the issue and would dump the quote hispanic unquote krap
Then there is the issue where some UK politicians along with Islamists wanted to prevent Donald Trump from even visiting Britan . Here he would have been saluted if he did this. Used the Brits expression to those phoneys; To Piss off and WISE UP pointing out the problems they are having rhere and chiding them for refusing to face reality.
Instead what did he do ? Threatens economic retailiation.on a project in Scotland
What really sealed it for me was when Businessman deal maker Trump who also owns Goldman Sachs stock
http://www.freerepublic.com/focua/f-news/3386879/posts
Sided with the GOPES and even advocates expanded mandated Ethanol because he thinks it will help him carry IOWA . Which also begs the question of Just how heavily invested is he in Ethanol ?
If one is born here of citizen patents, no other citizenship is possible, that is what the founders had in mind.
You think you know something about this subject? Then I reiterate the dummass comment.
The whole point about the US conception of a Natural Born Citizen derives from Vattel and not from Blackstone. That's the first point.
The second point is that Canada, unlike the United States, has no law that requires mental contortions and gymnastics to understand. You read the statute and you know the law. When Canadians use the term "natural born citizen" it is entirely congruent with "citizen by birth" because they define it that way BY STATUTE.
As we ought to do. That was, is and remains my point.And to make my point I don't need to equivocate, as you do.
So you say. Others disagree, and have for literally centuries.
I’m a lawyer and law professor so I do think I know as much or more than him, but anyone who knows anything about the law and declares something to be “settled law” when there’s never been a SCOTUS ruling on it is a liar plain and simple.
Glad to see you comparing Trump’s campaign with a circus act...good call!
Since we aren't Canada, the similarities are irrelevant
As you said, we use Vattel, and as I posted to you here -
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
Notice that, unlike Blackstone, Vattel does not refer to children born outside the country as *natural born citizens*, just..... citizens.
Finally!
And neither are their citizenship laws. It makes NO difference to our laws whether Canada considered Ted Cruz a citizen or if they did not. It's an irrelevancy .
As for Vattel, his view of the primacy of jus sanguinis is bleeding through his language throughout this quote and others equally compelling. He mentions it over and over and over again.
By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him...
Except we weren't talking about Cruz, I was correcting your ignorance.
And yes, there laws DO have relevance as far as them making him a citizen is concerned. If they didn't he wouldn't be waving around a Canadian birth certificate.
You would have realized this were you as well-versed in Vattel as you claim to be.
Here's the rest of § 215 -
But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
Cruz's father claimed refugee status when he left Cuba with no intention to return, and resided in Canada for several years. Thus he had *quit his country*, become a member of a new society, and his son became a member of it also.
---
As for Vattel, his view of the primacy of jus sanguinis is bleeding through his language throughout this quote and others equally compelling. He mentions it over and over and over again.
The primacy of blood does not negate the necessity of the soil. You're conclusion that Vattel intended foreign born children of citizens to be natural born when he clearly did not define them as such is just as flawed as your original contention that Canada had no such term as natural born.
The willful ignorance on this subject evident on FR is staggering.
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.