Posted on 01/30/2016 5:19:52 AM PST by Kaslin
Trump trolls: “Hey gang there’s another Cruz thread we can go stink up while convincing no one!”
Been down this road a thousand times.
You need to read carefully The 1790 Act.
It deals with NATURALIZATION.
In the act, the phrase “natural born” is referring to the children born of folks who themselves have been Naturalized through this act.
It is the CHILDREN of these now naturalized “Citizens” who would now be considered “Natural Born”, as both parents would now be considered “Citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.
Ans your opinion is better than mine because... ????
There are two provisions. The first is about the residence of the father and the 2nd is about the acceptability to the state.
When I was born there were no provisions that had to be met by any law. I was an NBC.
See the difference between an NBC and one NOT meeting those provisions in 1790?
Just because you had a citizen parent that didn’t make you an NBC like I automatically was.
Had Barack Obama been born overseas, there is no way under these provisions of the 1790 law that he would have been an NBC. His dad was Kenyan British and had NEVER been pursuing residency. He’d always been a student. (Ignore the white issue from that time. It’s irrelevant to this point.)
So a child born to a us citizen overseas was not automatically a us citizen in 1790.
I’m not saying Cruz wouldn’t have made it in 1790 but his Cuban father giving up his us resident status in canada would have been a complicated legal issue.
“natural born citizen means a person born of citizen parents.”
Yikes!
Sorry, I missed the “s” on the end.
Dirty glasses.
We agree on NBC.
Mea culpa. mea culkpa. mea maxima culpa.
ping to #45
See #45
Answer: yes.
I guess Trump fans must swarm every.single.post with the name Cruz in the title.
“I’m not saying Cruz wouldn’t have made it in 1790 but his Cuban father giving up his us resident status in canada would have been a complicated legal issue.”
Cruz’s father was a Canadian citizen when he was born.
“It deals with NATURALIZATION.”
Correct. That is in its name. However, it also just happens to define, by way of allusion, just what is meant by “natural born”, a term used in the Constitution.
I’ve not seen dates on that, so I’m not willing to go there. By my dates, Cruz senior left New Orleans in 1969 to go to Canada. Cruz was born at the end of December in 1970. That is not enough time to become a Canadian citizen.
I just read that Cruz’s father became a Canadian citizen in 1973. He was a citizen of Cuba before that. To think he could bequeath American citizenship to Ted Cruz, in any manner, is laughable.
How long does it take to become a Canadian citizen? It is not instantaneous, so he had to apply just at the same time he entered Canada or thereabouts, and probably even before Ted was born.
Little known, odawg, is that many have not commented on the Vietnam war raging blistering hot in 1969 when Cruz senior left the US for CANADA, and he returned to the US in 1975 when the war was declared over. A coincidence?
“I want more politicians.” —John Hawkins
That’s the quandary
the term natural born is only used twice by the founders
In the Constitution about POTUS regs and in the 1790 act
It’s never been challenged because Cruz is the first example contrary to those two wordings
It is now being challenged so we’ll see at some point
The whole “Cruz’s parents were alcoholics” smells to high heaven. Raphael Sr had a well established & lucrative business in Canada, he and his wife purchased a home, therefore, proof of their legal permanent residence status and then one day, out of the cold, in an instant, the business is sold and Raphael Sr leaves Canada, however, not as a ‘legal resident’, but as a full fledged Canadian citizen.
I have lived with alcoholic family members around me all my life and this is NOT how an alcoholic behaves. Unless there is a family member who is able to step in and take control of finances such as my grandmother did, there would have been no business to sell. Nope, this all smells like bull$hit to me. One time Cruz Jr says BOTH his parents had drinking problems and then the next time he claims that only his father was the drunk. Which is it? I suspect neither, I suspect it is nothing but the same political bull$hit that brought us the current usurper in chief, ... follow the money!!! Sr had the SAME financial backers as Jr does today!!!
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Can you, besides Ted Cruz that is?
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.