Punch out a baby 400 Feet in Texas and that Kid is a 100% American entitled to all our rights and benefits?
But An American Citizen who is in another country and has a baby, THAT baby isn't an American Citizen? Even if he was born to an American?
WTF kind of sense does that make!?
Oh Wait it doesn't because Ted Cruz IS an American Citizen through and through.
Those hammering this issue are surpassing parody and are fast approaching burlesque.
See my post #6.
No one said Cruz is not an American citizen, just not natural born, why is that so hard too understand?
That’s a good question, but it needs to be dealt with on the plane of citizenship, not natural born citizenship. If they are not made citizens, there will of course be no issue of them being natural born citizens, and the theoretical chance that an anchor baby might one day ascend to the Presidency is a pretty minor issue as compared to the millions of anchor babies flooding into our society, qualifying their parents for benefits and legal status, overcrowding schools and hospitals, growing up in an un-assimilated culture, joining gangs, etc. It seems pretty straightforward to me that the child of a diplomat born in the U.S. is not a citizen, much less a natural born citizen, ergo, neither is the child of two parents neither of which has any legal right to be here. But that will have to be sorted out by the three branches of the federal government.
All that maters is liberals get what they want. Same as it ever was KC.
-PJ
The Mexican baby would by misapplication of the 14th be a US citizen but the baby would not be natural born citizen (NBC) that requires two citizen parents (some might argue US father would be enough via original intent) in addition to being born on US soil.
Had Cruz been born in 1921 under the identical birth circumstances that he was born into in 1970, than he would not even have been a US citizen. The Cable Act, passed in 1922, allowed a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country, to transmit US citizenship onto the newborn child for the first time.
Article II, Section I clause 5, was ratified in 1791 with the rest of the constitution, long before the Cable Act.. Article I has not been modified by any subsequent amendment. Accordingly, the original intent and meaning of Article II stands absent any such constitutional amendment.
The purpose of Article II, Section I clause 5 was to prevent undue foreign influence on the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY thru a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The framers took their definition for NBC from Emmerich De Vattel Law of Nations, the 212th paragraph of which was quoted in its entirety in the 1814 Venus Merchantman SCOTUS decision. The Law of Nations is referred to in Article I of the constitution. That definition referred to an NBC as being born of two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation. That definition was cited in the 1868 case of Minor vs Hapersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US. De Vattel has been cited and accepted in dozens of SCOTUS and federal lower court rulings. The framers were patriarchs who believed that the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship of the father.
The authors of the 14th amendment, Senators Howard Jacob and Rep. Bingham also defined an NBC in similar terms.
Obama is the very embodiment and personification of the REASON that the framers put those protections into the constitution. By ignoring it, we have opened ourselves to the anti American and unconstitutional tyranny that Obama poses to our constitutional republic.
Ted Cruz is head and shoulders the best candidate in the race. He is a patriot who loves this country and its people. He is intellectually and philosophically superior to ANYONE else in the race. As much as I admire him, He CANNOT be considered a natural born citizen, as he is a citizen by statute. He was born with THREE countries (The US, Canada, and Cuba thru his father) having a legitimate claim on his allegiance from birth, whether he wanted it or not. I believe in the constitution and the rule of law, NOT in the cult of personality. We should not yield to the same dark impulses of expediency and delusion that gave us the tyrannical sociopathic usurper demagogue Obama.
Nobody said he is not a citizen. He is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN which was a restrictive phrase taken from E. Vattel’s The Law of Nations, published in 1758. The Framers did not want someone with divided loyalties to become president and command-in-chief of the army, so chose Vattel’s wording which was well known to them. It required the child to be born of TWO CITIZENS of the United States. Blackstone had nothing to do with it.
Citizen, yes; natural born, no.
What sense?
Neither are eligible to run for president. Both can do almost every thing else.