Posted on 01/29/2016 9:17:32 AM PST by jimbo123
LOL a rock, not a rick Sorry
But it is OK to give citizenship to a child born here to non-citizen parents? That is very convoluted logic.
A child born overseas to citizen parents cannot be president but a child born in NYC to two Russian spies qualifies? Doesn’t pass the common-sense interpretation rule.
Don’t get sidetracked by the title of the bill. The point is the bill itself made a distinction between “naturalized” and “natural born” citizens.
The issue is the term “natural born citizen” (Art II, Sec 1, Cl 5) as it was originally understood and intended at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.
The 1795 bill never used the term “natural born citizen”, so it is limited in its usefulness in the original understanding of the term. The 1795 bill addressed only alien naturalization and children born in the U.S. to a naturalized citizen. It did not address the specific issue of birth outside the U.S.
So although the 1795 Bill replaced the 1790 Bill, the 1790 bill is still useful in gaining insight into the original understanding of the term “natural born citizen.”
a child born in NYC to two Russian spies qualifies
??? Which candidate are you referring to? I have REALLY missed something.
That's good, because it's what you'll be getting.
“But it is OK to give citizenship to a child born here to non-citizen parents? “
You said that. Not me. So quit trying to put words in my mouth.
“Who knows if he would pull out of the race before November? The guy is unreliable.”
IIRC, Ross Perot was also known for his headline grabbing one-liners too.
McCain wasn’t eligible either, he was born in the country of Panama. The fig leaf Senate Resolution declaring him eligible was in exchange for not questioning The Usurper. It relied on him having two US citizen parents as justification.
The GOP wanted the definition changed also because they had many more ineligible candidates on the bench, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Haley.
You might be right. I though McCain was born on a US Military base. American soil.
The son of a Cuban, born in Canada to an American mothers is not a natural born citizen if you go by original intent. Not even close.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone with at the time was a US territory.
A US Military base is not consider American soil.
Cruz is really getting to Trump. I didn’t see that coming...rent-free...
Look, I said that Trump’s statement was not true. There is strong evidence that someone born outside the U.S. CAN be considered a natural born citizen.
I didn’t say a word about Cruz’ specific case. I’m simply saying that Trump has to come up with more than Cruz being born outside the U.S. to claim he is not a natural born citizen.
I agree with you but you’re not going to convince any Cruzbots of anything. Many of them will just sit it out if it’s anyone but Cruz. It appears it’s Cruz or Bust.
I didn’t watch the debate either, I watched the Vets with Trump, but while I was channel surfing, I did notice that after the debate, Cruz tried to talk to Bush and he walked away, and so did the others...I did see a link with the same thing on it this morning but didn’t save it...
I just laughed...
Oh sorry, I think you can make a very good argument for a child of two US citizens abroad in service to their country. Maybe even the child of two US citizens briefly abroad on holiday. Back in 1790 traveling abroad was not a common thing.
Yes, and the 1790 bill acknowledged the possibility of overseas birth being that of a natural born citizen.
McCain was born in the United States territory section of the Panama Canal. It was “in the USA” at the time.
Then I stand corrected. TY
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.