Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

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.


22 posted on 04/17/2016 6:13:10 PM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Bryan24

Ahh the old “process” myth.


24 posted on 04/17/2016 6:14:49 PM PDT by Ray76 (Judge Roy Moore for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Bryan24
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.

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."

37 posted on 04/17/2016 6:30:56 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Bryan24
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.

3. He could be "considered as a natural-born citizen. (meaning he's not one)
4. He could be a legal foreign national.

79 posted on 04/17/2016 7:41:23 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Ohhh....Derka derka derka!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Bryan24

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.


With Cruz, it’s an OPTICS issue. It’s an issue of documentation. If you are born outside of the USA, there are conditions under which you are an American citizen on paper within hours of your birth. You need to file your documentation. Cruz’s mother did not. So he was, on paper, Canadian (natural born, too) until he was 16. Only thereafter did he have Americsn documentation. It’s awkward to have a President who wasn’t officially American until he was an older teen.


105 posted on 04/18/2016 12:13:31 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson