Posted on 01/08/2016 9:57:21 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
On Ted Cruz's eligibility, if he's the great advocate of the Constitution that he purports to be, I don't see why he doesn't agree to the public release of his immigration and naturalization file. Yes, he absolutely has to have an immigration file. We know for a fact that he doesn't have a U.S. birth certificate, and without that, the only way to legally live and work in the United States is via the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
If it's true that he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth through his mother, then the file would consist of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA). http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html.
If such a document is in fact on file with the Statement Department, then we can at least say that he was a citizen at birth.
But no, that does not close the case. While there's certainly a good argument that "natural born citizen" means "citizen at birth", there are other arguments to the effect that if the purpose of the NBC clause was to prevent a President with divided loyalties, dual citizenship and natural born citizenship would be mutually exclusive categories, and it's not questioned that Cruz was a dual citizen until a bit more than two years ago.
I'd also like to say that for some of us, this issue as it related to Obama and now Cruz is far from just some wacky irrelevant technicality: the basic problem that America faces IMHO is the fact that we have traitors who have infested the highest levels of our government. Maybe not literal traitors actively fighting on the battlefield with our enemies, but traitors in the sense of people who place the interests of non-Americans above the interests of Americans; they don't place our security above our "international obligations", they don't defend our borders, they prioritize the needs of illegal aliens over those of American citizens, they sign international trade deals that decimate American industry, and on and on.
As it happens the Founders of our great nation were also quite concerned about this, having just fought a war for their independence not only against the British Crown, but also against the "Loyalists" who remained loyal to it following the Declaration of Independence. In yet another of their incredibly brilliant and prescient moves in crafting the Constitution, they embedded within it a clause that would (hopefully) ensure that at the highest level of our government, we would exclude those who might have divided loyalties, and even more IMHO, people who in the back of their minds might know that they would always have an "escape hatch" to avoid accountability to the American people by virtue of a latent claim to citizenship in a foreign country.
Yes, ultimately, a socialist traitor can come from anywhere, as can a constitutional conservative, but I don't see anything wrong with maintaining this one small measure of additional insurance against exactly the sort of traitorous, anti-American behavior and ideology that has been the hallmark of the Obama Administration.
And since he did not immigrate or become naturalized, what file would you suggest he show?
You’re just outright lying.
Pathetic and dispicable.
False. Foreign Soil births of US citizens are recorded at the US Consulate. No other documentation is required, it is treated as the "US" birth certificate.
Uh, yes a foreign birth is recorded at the U.S Consulate in the form of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA). You don’t think the INS would maintain copies of that?
Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA)
How so?
Demanding that he disprove a negative. Very Alinskyite.
I can’t show my naturalization papers either since I was never naturalized.
Funny thing is that I suspect this will show to be more harmful to the accusers. I see John McCain is already backtracking.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/the_cruz_natural_born_citizen_fake_controversy.html
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/an-unnaturally-born-non-controversy
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429356/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen
http://battleborndesign.com/2016/01/07/cruz-vs-obama-eligible/
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president
Shut up you lying scum.
Don’t play innocent.
Playing innocent is playing stupid and you are not that stupid.
Just focus on the latest shiny object the MSM is dangling at us.
Since you didn’t mention the current law, here is where readers can go and educate themselves should they want to:
The current governing law is Title 8 section 1401. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
It's a good idea to record the birth of an American child born abroad at the consulate, there is no law requiring that this be done. Failure to get this certificate and registration does not affect the citizenship of the child.
In most countries, this would be done as a matter of course, because it is a prerequisite for a passport, local visa, etc. But Canada did not at that time require a passport or a visa for US citizens, nor did the US require a passport for returning US citizens or for Canadians either. So there would have been little compelling reason to register the birth at the US consulate.
Frankly, failure to register the birth at the US consulate is a bit irresponsible, but it isn't fair to blame the parent's irresponsibility on the infant.
See tagline. It really is that simple.
Since Cruz was born in a foreign country, in order to guarantee his citizenship, his parents (mother) had to make a record of this with the American consulate/embassy.
You are so right again.
Think Rubio took another hit too with Cruz’s remarks:
No surprise, McCain intends to endorse Rubio, they are practically the same on foreign policy and exactly the same on immigration.
Laughed and laughed. Such a hit on Rubio out of it all.
I don't think INS would ever be involved or receive such paperwork. Why would they?
Yes his mother should have reported the foreign birth.
Since you didn’t mention the current law, here is where readers can go and educate themselves should they want to:
The current governing law is Title 8 section 1401. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
*****************************************************************************
And here it (i.e., the applicable law) is for those who cannot follow links and read themselves.
“...The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:...
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...”
Who else would? Are you arguing with a straight face that the U.S. government requires documentation in order for someone to acquire citizenship but then just tosses the document in the trash can?
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.