Posted on 01/30/2016 11:10:12 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
...
The first thought that comes to mind is that Trump keeps coming back to this attack against Cruz for a couple of reasons. The first is that he cannot make attacks on Cruz's record of standing up for conservative principles the centerpiece of his strategy because that leaves him open to greater scrutiny of his own liberal record...
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
LOL! Trump is having a great deal of fun at Cruz’ expense, and his sensitive supporters are going nuts on Twitter. My cousin works with Cruz and said Donald is actually very fond of Ted, but “business is business” a la The Godfather. He will do what he must to prevail.
Live Trump rallies here Canned Spam.
“LIVE THREAD: All Three Trump IOWA Speeches Today: Dubuque, Clinton & Davenport”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3390578/posts
Cuban citizens aren’t sovereigns like here In the US- As a sovereign parent In the US this parent can have a child anywhere and citizenship is bestowed upon them as a result- recent court cases have been increasingly finding this to be the case
There is no comparison. Trump’s mother was -
1. A US naturalized citizen PRIOR to Trump’s birth OR conception. Naturalized in 42 and Trump born in 45, iirc.
2. A bride romanced in this country when visiting from Scotland, and NOT one seeking asylum from a 3rd world dictatorship.
Bottom line: Trump was born INSIDE the USA to parents, BOTH of whom were US citizens at the time of his birth AND conception.
Yes which makes Trump 100% eligible to be POTUS...
No its not obvious. Its not even obvious that children born in the country to non citizens are citizens. There are laws and statutes and its not just about obvious because obvious is often wrong.
Ted Cruz is undoubtedly a citizen because he has traveled on a US passport. However the provenience of his citizenship is not obvious because as someone not born on American soil to two citizen parents or to one citizen parent and a legal immigrant who is in the process of naturalization, he is not an American citizen at birth. He is an American citizen only after he/his parents provide the Consulate or the Dept of Immigration/Naturalization with proof that he meets the statutes governing the awarding of citizenship to those born outside of America. Those documents are not available for review, only his Canadian birth certificate has been released.
LoL. Nicky can say anything, everything, every which way and loose.
BTW Trump deplaning at the Dubuque, IA airport from Air Trump One. ;-)
Absurd. Obviously, there is more to it. We left behind hundreds of 'citizens' in the form of children born to men stationed in Vietnam who had children with locals. Or children born from US tourists overseas have just as right to run for the Presidency as someone born in the USA.
No, I’m saying at this point I think Ted Cruz is irrelevant.
[[There is no published record of Rafael Cruz attaining Canadian citizenship prior to the birth of Ted Cruz.]]
The naturalization act doesn’t state he had to be citizen, just a resident- and as I mentioned before- recent court cases are finding children born to one citizen parent are automatically bestowed citizenship and considered NBC’s-
IF we’re going to impose old rules of naturalization , (which have constantly changed) then we are going to have to discount trump too because one of the old rules stated a mother had to be a citizen for a certain number of years before the child’s 14’th birthday- Trump’s mother only became a citizen 2 years before his birth- She fails the older naturalization requirements
Ahhh the and you know it argument. It does not hold up. Your honor, he is natural born, and you know it!
“The light came on!!
NO RECORD!”
As in Presidents Taylor, Grant, Taft, and Eisenhower!!!!!
There is no legal precedent for a President born outside the US, and we have not had a President born outside the US. Period.
The intentions of the Founders have simply not been tested and adjudicated in a court of law.
As a school child in the 50s and 60s I was taught a President had to be born in the US, with the sole exception being born to US diplomats serving abroad. (Conceptually the embassy is US territory)
When the Senate passed a resolution proclaiming McCain eligible, I understood that to be an extension of the diplomatic status to also include military serving abroad.
Sadly “true conservatives” wasted a bunch of ridiculous ammo on Obama, and little credibility remains to actually deal with Cruz’ situation.
But be assured the democrats will deal with it if need be.
Where is Cruz’s CRBA?
You have to go back that far?
Come into the 21st century.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795. So the Naturalization Act of 1790 ceased to be law once the 1795 act was signed into law.
Regardless, the text of the 1790 law states:
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
There is an interpretation issue here. Does the plural “citizens” refer to both parents, or does the plural “citizens” refer to the many covered by the law? Given the text says “and the children of” [plural], not “and a child of” [singular], it is probably the many covered by the law.
It is not clear from the text. Mark Levin interprets the 1790 law would confer Natural Born Citizenship status on Cruz if it were still the law today.
What is clear is if a woman traveled overseas and had a child of a foreign man who never was a U.S. citizen or resident, citizenship would not transfer.
“You have to go back that far?
Come into the 21st century.”
The 21st century is only 16 years old. In historical terms, Eisenhower was yesterday.
I could have added Obama. Is that better?
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States.
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.