Birther alert!
Posted on 04/17/2016 5:57:25 PM PDT by writer33
There are several resident status classifications in the United States: natural born citizen, naturalized citizen, diplomatic immunity, temporary resident (on a visa), lawful permanent resident (green card holder), and illegal alien. Ted Cruz isn't the child of diplomats, and he was never naturalized as a citizen.
So either he is an illegal alien or a natural born citizen. There is no middle ground. If you don't believe he is a natural born citizen, then you believe there is an illegal alien serving in the U.S. Senate. There is no middle ground. You should immediately call for his deportation.
The Constitution gives explicit power to the Congress to determine citizenship and border enforcement. Since the Constitution never defines explicitly what natural born citizen means, that means beginning with the 1790 Naturalization Act Congress has been defining it — which the Constitution gives Congress the power to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
If you wont the debate, why is Cruz still running for POTUS? Because it’s mere drivel with no substance to the argument. That’s why he’s still running.
You must have skipped around while reading that. The writer made a few salient points that, when log is is applied, bring him to the conclusion he made.
I’ve seen no evidence that Cruz was naturalized. Yes, I know what that means, as I had to go through the naturalization process for my adopted son. If Cruz HAS been naturalized, then the point is moot.
If he has NOT been naturalized, then there are only two possibilities - 1. He is considered, by law, a natural-born citizen or 2. He is an illegal alien.
The writer’s point is correct on this.
> But both weren’t born in the U.S.
So what?
Ahh the old “process” myth.
Your conclusions are faulty.
First the Constitution expressly includes the grandfather clause covering individuals like Washington etc...
Secondly, it isn’t that both parents have to be natural born citizens but nominally that both must be citizens, though given the state of English Common Law at the time of the founding of this country one might justly opine that a citizen father alone is sufficient while a citizen mother alone flatly is not, such a novelty as “natural born subject” not appearing in British Law till well after the political break with England and thus having absolutely no bearing on the “English common law” applicable to the United States. If that last sounds soooo 18th century you should just deal with it, because the way our federal Constitution was created prevents there being any “federal common law”, the ability to make Law of that sort being now a function of the amendment process rather than the legislative or judicial power.
Moreover, with respect to what you posted, one can be a citizen, with just one citizen parent, under the laws of the United States, which is to say statutory law, without being a natural born citizen in the applicable common law sense.
I won it so hard I even had Cruzers refusing to ping me as they mouthed off in other threads. At this point, going over old ground for Cruzers late to the party is tiring. The evidence is crystal clear: whether by a "Law of Nations" definition of Natural Born, or that used by the British as seen in Blackwell's Commentaries, Cruz is utterly ineligible. Both definitions passed citizenship paternally. Cruz, at best, has citizenship through his mother only, not enough to fulfill the constitutional definition of natural born as understood by the founding fathers and many originalist scholars, including men who have argued before the Supreme Court.
Then feel free to take it to court. Just arguing on threads is self-defeating at the very minimum. Go ahead and take it to court.
The Courts stopped caring about original intent a long long time ago. Now all we have left are sycophants like Cruz and Roberts, and fraudsters like Levin, pretending to be legal wizards.
There should have been a “with only the mother being a subject” should have appeared after the mention of “natural born subject”.
Cool.
Birther alert!
I’m just too fragile. LOL!
Rubbish. No Act of Congress has any effect whatsoever on the definition on NBC AT THE TIME OF RATIFICATION. Want Cruz to be president? AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!
Indeed, with the majority of domestic functions presently aimed by the federal being those for which there is absolutely no delegated power given the federal this is true.
Fact is, the Republic under the federal Constitution that replaced that under the Articles of Confederation CEASED in FDR’s time.
At this time we have an Arbitrary government that drapes itself in the form of the lawful, constitutional government and nothing more. This state of affairs was pretty much always what the so-called “progressives” labored for since well before it was achieved. They were and are, everyone of them that every falsely promised to uphold the Constitution in their oaths of office, all scum worthy of nothing but contempt and scorn.
Exactly. These issues are only complicated because people are trying to square the circle and make their guy eligible.
This is a fallacy of assumption. The lack of a "naturalization process" does not preclude a naturalization.
Young children of naturalized aliens do not have to go through any naturalization "process." They derive their citizenship from their naturalized parents.
When congress passes a law that naturalizes a certain category of children "at birth", they are not required to go through a process, but they are naturalized none the less.
If you bother to go look at the law, you will see that it says "naturalization" right in the section heading.
If he has NOT been naturalized, then there are only two possibilities - 1. He is considered, by law, a natural-born citizen or 2. He is an illegal alien.
The faulty assumption is that it requires a "process" to be naturalized. No, a process is not required. Look up the "naturalization act of 1790". None of those children went through a "process" either, but you would have to be either a fool or dishonest to say that they weren't naturalized.
The writer’s point is correct on this.
He's not within 100 miles of correct. He's not even knowledgeable enough to understand what an idiot he is for saying what he said. As Wolfgang Pauli said, He's "not even wrong."
I’m not convinced
I need to see their birth certificates
And when you show them to me I’ll be concerned they’re forged
So please take this to a federal court and confirm this important question
I’m just trying to help your candidate in the general
Nothing personal
Drat! Should be “claimed by the federal” not “aimed by the federal”
I guess I have to tell you I am SHOCKED that with his billions of dollars that Donald Trump has not had Cruz removed from the ballot in any state. If this is such an obvious slam-dunk, why is he still on the ballot in all the states?
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.