Birther alert!
> 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.
The author is an idiot.
> If you believe both parents have to be natural born to be qualified to be president, then you actually believe Millard Fillmore was the first president and not George Washington. If you believe both parents have to be natural born to be qualified to be president, then Donald Trump is also ineligible because his mother was born in Scotland and became a naturalized citizen, just like Rafael Cruz.
Nice straw man.
born on US soil to TWO CITIZEN parents. Try reading senate resolution #511.
he forgots to mention lil marco, an anchor baby whose parents became CITIZENS 5 years AFTER marco was hatched.
Don’t blame me, I didn’t say it:
posted on 5/12/2010, 3:03:41 PM by 2ndDivisionVet (Don’t care if he was born in a manger on July 4th! A “Natural Born” citizen requires two US parents!)
Who believes both parents have to be “natural born citizens?” Most “birthers” who subscribe to Vattel believe both parents have to be citizens.
The GW reference is ignorant, since the Constitution at its adoption ‘grandfathered’ in those who were citizens at the time. None of the Founders or Framers could possibly have been citizens of the US at the time of their birth. Duh.
Real “definitive.”
Non sequitur. He could also be a naturalized citizen.
Once you've made such an obvious mistake, any credibility you might have had evaporates.
One of the more stupid things I’ve read today and there have been a lot.
We’re still having this debate? We won it a long time ago here on FR. Last thing we need is some Freeper using Steve Deace, a complete ignoramus who doesn’t even understand the debate, to open his stupid fat mouth.
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.
Birther alert!
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!
Steve Deace is an idiot.
If he actually knew anything about this, he'd know that Ted Cruz qualified as naturalised from birth under then-existing US immigration law. Naturalisation isn't just a process someone goes through when they "take the oath." Children can be naturalised from birth - as Ted Cruz was - when their parents fulfill certain criteria. These children are legally considered to be "naturalised."
Willfully ignorant or propagandist
One wonders if Conservative Review has anyone connected with it who has any knowledge whatsoever of constitutional legal research or any other legal research? It does not appear so. This article is blissfully ignorant of any knowledge of the law whatsoever.
True for the French diplomat, but false for the Honduran ilegales.
The ambassador doesn't have to pay his parking tickets. He is not "subject to the jurisdiction". He has diplomatic immunity. Not so with the Hondurans. Lacking immunity, they are subject to the jurisdiction and are required to obey parking and other American law.
Result: the ambassador's kid is not a US citizen, despite being born in NYC. But, because the Hondurans are "subject to the jurisdiction", their kid is an anchor baby, under the terms of the 14th.
Millar Fillmore? Yo, Steve, before publishing something, it might help if you’d do a wee little bit of research. Guess you missed the part that grandfathers in the early presidents.
Obama and Hillary both signed their names to the original Senate Resolution 511 stating NBC means born on US soil to two US citizen parents. Neither the Kenyan nor the Canadian are eligible. But just like illegals are now “essentially citizens”, the rule book has been thrown out the window by both parties.
We are supposed to be afraid to say Cruz is an “illegal alien,” and be cowed into silence.
Deace has been a Cruz slappy for months and months. He’s been on board when Cruz said Trump was to blame for the Soros-funded violence in Chicago, and all the rest of Cruz’s slanders.
I haven’t gotten into this much, since the chances of Rafael Edward Cruz winding up in December 2016 with 270+ electoral votes are vanishingly small, so this will never need to be adjudicated.
However, there are two strong points against Cruz being an NBC:
1) Born to an alien father in a foreign land, and
2) Obviously, a natural born citizen of Canada (whatever else he was or wasn’t).
I don’t believe the authors of Article II would have regarded anyone born to an alien father in a foreign land as NBC, and I also don’t believe they would have accepted the idea of one person being “natural born” in two or more than two places.
As I said, it’s irrelevant because of Cruz’s un-electability, but those are two strikes against him.
I wonder if there will ever come a day when we can cease repeating the same blithering nonsense by people who think they have some new slant on things over and over again. I’m not optimistic.