Fox News (2014): Cruz Ineligible due to Canadian Birth

Twitter/Fox News Clip ^ | 01/18/2016 | Fox

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Short clip (17 seconds) at link above. Fox was discussing potential Presidential candidates. Discusses Rubio then brings up Cruz, but then dismisses due to not being a natural born citizen.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

You REALLY SHOULD go back and read the FOUNDING FATHERS' DEFINITION OF "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" !

Been there, done that. You are delusional and very arrogant.

[Yosemitest]

Who's DELUSIONAL/
You're the one taking the word of an "PROGRESSIVE" "SOCIALIST" !

Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.

... What happened next ...

The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy.
Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote.
During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.
... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797-1801; served 1797-1801), was known as the Federalists.
The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804).
The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities.
An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801-9).
The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed.

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.
The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen
and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized.
An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter.
The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess")
and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen.
These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges.

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law were restored
except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries. ...

[WildHighlander57]

GPH, thanks for the post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3385459/posts?page=120#120

Hoosiermama, ping to the above post.

[Perdogg]

Bret Bair in his segment said Cruz was nbC.

[a fool in paradise]

FoxNews 2014 and a twitter reference are FRONT PAGE NEWS items?

[bushpilot2]

Considered as natural born citizens is a proviso. Restriction

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Quick Notes Version of the Eligibility Debate ...

[I’m no lawyer, but even lawyers have trouble with this — it’s a specialty topic.]

1. Original intent. No matter what original intent you look at, Cruz is not eligible.

— Some say ‘must have mother and father — US citizens when overseas.

— Some say ‘must at least have US father when overseas’

— Some insist you must be born in the US.

~~~

2. Women Equal.

Now for the ‘women equal’ argument.

As you know, women are treated as equally as possible in the courts these days. That’s what Cruz is banking on — why can’t a mother alone make him qualify?

— But that is not original intent. So while it wins in court, it fails to end the controversy.

~~~

It would be a good idea to empathetic toward Cruz supporters because we will need their help not only after the primary but after the election. Some of them are wicked-smart, and all of them seek advice from wicked-smart people. But this issue has been confusing for almost everyone up ‘til now.

~~~

One counter-point to address ...

Even if courts invoke the 14th Amendment, that was debunked by Greetings Puny Humans, not a genuine intepretation:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3384380/posts?page=68#68

That’s it basically.

Ideally, we are best off to have someone absolutely rock-solid as ‘natural born’ by all major definitions.

The only reason we respect Cruz’ argument at all is because he’s such an awesome patriot-scholar in every other respect. Even his arch-enemy Tribe makes that clear.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

For quick-notes understanding of Cruz elibility:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3385459/posts?page=167#167

New tagline NOT aimed at you. FRegards ...

[HoosierWordsmith]

Oh Puny...you’re off your meds again?

So, because Campaign Carl Cameron says it on TV, it must be an undeniable fact?

Please....

[Cboldt]

That’s a quite-notes route to misunderstanding, ya’ hoser!

[Lexinom]

America is dead.

I'm out.

[ScottinVA]

[jaydee770]

“...The Framers of our Constitution applied Vattel’s concept...”

That someone is a citizen by birth is absolutely valid. That a “law” can also define what a certain circumstance of birth equates to is also just as valid. A mere three years after the founders wrote the NBC clause in the constitution, they used their constitutionally granted authority over citizenship and in the Naturalization Act of 1790 defined one particular circumstance of birth (Children of US citizen born outside the nation) as a certain type of citizen (are Natural Born Citizens). Why would the Founding Fathers/Framers of the Constitution do that *IF* (as so many Trump supporters claim) it was not what they believed? It flatly refutes the Trump supporter’s understanding of “Vattel” *AND* it also tends to refute the claim they wrote the constitution per Vattel. However, it does align nicely with British Common Law concepts which Taft (president and supreme court justice) noted is the legal style/foundation that the founders thought, argued and wrote in because it was most familiar to them.

Being NBC at birth to two US citizens on US soil is *absolutely* valid. However, that point also does not preclude citizenship *laws* being valid as well. The 1790 Act, regardless of being law and or later modified is also just as valid in determining the opinion of “the founding fathers who participated in the framing of the Constitution”. They *included* in the constitution that Congress had the authority to define citizenship by law. No amendment is needed as it’s been in there from the very start. Now *Legally* speaking, the only argument that matters is the citizenship law in place when Cruz was born - and that law is absolutely valid because the founders (who wrote the NBC clause) also wrote in the constitution that congress has the authority to legislate citizenship.

So *both* legal concepts are currently (and have been since the founding) valid — at least until a court of competent jurisdiction says different and/or congress acts to affirmatively resolve any related issue. Which would be yet another law, valid until changed by legislation and/or SCOTUS says different. Lather, rinse, repeat...

And regardless of any existing SCOTUS ruling made since that time, due to *judicial restraint* it can not be applied to a case resolving presidential qualifications until the same argument(s) are used successfully in a relevant case. And they may very well be successful in constraining the definition when they do - but they haven’t yet done so specifically for presidential qualifications.

Nowadays, even if you are born on US soil to two parents - there is legally binding paperwork involved which is defined by laws in order to get your birth certificate which you can later use to show your provenance. Good luck living “on the grid” without a birth certificate (ie - the Govt’s approval/acknowledgement of your birth) if you are born today.

And as I’ve said, bottom line: if Cruz would have been fine by the founders (and they did say in their own words in the legislative record that his circumstance of birth would have been fine as NBC), who am I to argue with them? And if Cruz did not present a threat to Trump, we probably would be debating issues instead of trying to find different ways to split the same “hair”.

Opinions may vary...

Best of luck with your candidate!

[odawg]

Only thing wrong about all that is that Trump is NOT running on your outlined platform. Quite the contrary.

Now if he were running on such a platform, and was succeeding, then you would be justified in writing that.

As it is, it is deception on your part, as you imply spiritual purity for yourself of some type.

[odawg]

“A week ago I would have backed Cruz or Trump.”

Typical feigned disgust by dyed-in-the-wool Cruz supporter. I just grabbed this off your forum page:

10/26/2015, 9:36:25 AM · 15 of 87
Lexinom to stars & stripes forever
There ya go.... That’s fantastic news, huge. I lived in Texas as Cruz was running to replace Dewhurst in the primary, when the latter as I recall was getting those big corporate contribs, so this is a major turnabout from those days in 2012.

[MHGinTN]

LOL

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

What original intent interpretation vindicates Cruz’ eligibility?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

We survived McStain. We survived Nixon. But oh no! We can’t survive without Cruz?

What about the Liberty Amendments? Cruz will be a part of that, might add a few of his own.

I don’t accept your resignation. Understand your frustration, but perspective please.

[Cboldt]

-- What original intent interpretation vindicates Cruz' eligibility? --

None. On that part I agree. I think the equal rights overlay isn't present, and isn't necessary.

Mostly, I was funnin' with you.

[CottonBall]

â—¦Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

â—¦Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

â—¦Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

Looks like none of those work since Cruz’s father was not a US citizen or national.