For purposes of naturalization.
Think I am wrong? Start back in 1970. Read the resolutions in Congress. The very first thing you will find is that to qualify to be “natural born” one must be “native born”. AND later resolution attempts admit that a law is insufficient, an AMENDMENT is necessary. There have been countless images posted on FreeRe - it is not we who take anything out of context.
The amendment would require a ratification - which is why it never went anywhere further than a resolution.
I’ve been at this for seven years. This ain’t about Cruz with me, so understand that first.
[[I’ve been at this for seven years. This ain’t about Cruz with me, so understand that first.]]
You gave no indication that it was about him- I understood that you have looked into this as a matter of principle-
I’m simply citing what these court cases have indicated- the matter, as you know, having been at this for several years- has many angles to it and is something that has not been settled - there are valid arguments on both sides which is why it hasn’t been settled as of yet and my never be-
It is late- I’m too tire to continue tonight-
[[There have been countless images posted on FreeRe - it is not we who take anything out of context.]]
I wasn’t accusing you of that- I hope you didn’t think I was? If so I certainly did not intend to-
[[For purposes of naturalization.]]
Just a quick note about that- in the FAS link I posted it takes up the issue of ‘naturalization’ and NBC on page 40- and like Cdbolt stated, there is the issue of ‘naturalization without an act’ and one ‘with an act’ and the courts have been indicating that there is a difference between naturalization of ‘at birth/by birth’ and ‘after birth’ ( those who’s parents are neither citizens)