IMO, he's more concerned with the constitutionality of rulings that go against the will of the state's people.
He also gave up his Canadian citizenship.
IMO, he's more concerned with the constitutionality of rulings that go against the will of the state's people.
You were being evasive and your posts were long and boring when you could have just answered the questions. I skipped over your posts. Life is too short.
I'm with you here. My eyes glazed over trying to read his replies on page 22. Clearly, he prides himself on being the forums' foremost legal authority on America birth rights. :roll: If that's what give him his hardcore jollies, so be it. :shrug:
Regardless of the size of his ego, he and I can agree on one thing: Ted Cruz doesn't meet the constitutional eligibility requirement to be POTUS which was the point of this thread. Anything else he has to say regarding the subtopics that have sprung up in the thread...let's just say he's entitled to his opinion. Nonetheless, I'm more than willing to let the Supreme Court or Congress define who is and is not a natural-born U.S. citizen should either body ever formally take up the issue.
I liked your post, although I disagree with you on Cruz's eligibility.... just wanted to mention that my like was for the rest of it.
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person.
Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
So, just to clarify the matter, does anyone know if his parents were, in fact, married at the time of his birth OR if his mother lived in the U.S. for at least 5-years prior to his birth? I'd hate to see this country go through the same birther crap all over again.
Yes, they were married; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, went to college in Houston and later worked in Houston, so she had definitely lived in the US for more than 5 years.
(note, yes, I got my data from wikipedia, but I have no reason to think it is incorrect based on other sites I have read about Cruz' life. Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
)
Yup, his mother was born and raised in Delaware and went to I believe Rice University, and she graduated in the 1950s. Ted was born in 1970. His mother was a US citizen.
His father came here on a student Visa in the late 1950s. Not sure exactly when he married Mrs. Cruz but his Visa ran out (it was a 4 year Visa) and I think he married her at around that time (early 1960s) when he got his green card.
There are a lot of reasons to not like Cruz. This isn't one of them.
Yes, they were married; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, went to college in Houston and later worked in Houston, so she had definitely lived in the US for more than 5 years.
(note, yes, I got my data from wikipedia, but I have no reason to think it is incorrect based on other sites I have read about Cruz' life. Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
)
Yup, his mother was born and raised in Delaware and went to I believe Rice University, and she graduated in the 1950s. Ted was born in 1970. His mother was a US citizen.
His father came here on a student Visa in the late 1950s. Not sure exactly when he married Mrs. Cruz but his Visa ran out (it was a 4 year Visa) and I think he married her at around that time (early 1960s) when he got his green card.
There are a lot of reasons to not like Cruz. This isn't one of them.
In your statement, one presupposes the other. The interest in his birth is predicated on "only" those who oppose the "idea" of him becoming President.I said that the issue of where he was born was only important to people who oppose the idea of him being elected President. The people who plan to support him don't care, as long as it's confirmed that he's qualified.
He was a Canadian and was born owing Canadian allegiance.Cruz had dual citizenship. His mother was an American citizen, and his father was a Cuban refugee. Cruz was raised and educated in the United States. And he was a citizen of the United States from birth. He got Canadian citizenship because Canada grants citizenship to people born there. There isn't any reason to think he has allegiance to Canada. His parents left there when he was 4 years old.
It isn't a matter of like. It is a mater of whether he meets the criteria of natural born citizen, which he clearly is not.There are a lot of reasons to not like Cruz. This isn't one of them.
And a law was later passed giving those born there citizenship.McCain's parents were in Panama working for the US government.
Matters not one bit to this argument.He also gave up his Canadian citizenship.
Wow. The audacity of some people. :dohClearly, he prides himself on being the forums' foremost legal authority on America birth rights. :roll: If that's what give him his hardcore jollies, so be it. Regardless of the size of his ego,
Willing? No. You will be resigned to accede to their decision as legal authority on the issue, just as everyone else would.I'm more than willing to let the Supreme Court or Congress define who is and is not a natural-born U.S. citizen should either body ever formally take up the issue.
See. Here you are doing it again. The Act applies to his being a citizen. Not a natural born citizen.And Secton 1409(c), "Born out of wedlock":
So, just to clarify the matter, does anyone know if his parents were, in fact, married at the time of his birth OR if his mother lived in the U.S. for at least 5-years prior to his birth? I'd hate to see this country go through the same birther crap all over again.
In your statement, one presupposes the other. The interest in his birth is predicated on "only" those who oppose the "idea" of him becoming President.
Yes, that is a blanket statement concerning "only" those who oppose the "idea" of him becoming president, which is false.
He was a Canadian and was born owing Canadian allegiance.
We are talking about his condition at birth. It doesn't matter that he later renounced that allegiance/citizenship. He was born with it.
But more to the point.
No Constitutional citizenship was conferred upon Cruz at birth or later.
Being a "natural born citizen" is a Constitutional requirement and depends solely on what the framers meant by that.
No Statute (law) or regulation can confer that upon him. His citizenship is, and was, by Statute only.
The Supreme Court already recognized that there are two possible categories that fit within the natural born citizenship clause.
One of which there is no doubt that it applies, which was those born of citizen parents on US soil.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
But there are doubts if the other category applies, which was those born on US soil regardless of the parents citizenship.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Both the above require being born on our soil, neither of which Cruz falls into.
It isn't a matter of like. It is a mater of whether he meets the criteria of natural born citizen, which he clearly is not.
And a law was later passed giving those born there citizenship.
Matters not one bit to this argument.
:dohHe was born an American citizen, and he was granted Canadian citizenship because they grant citizenship to anyone born there.
:dohHe left the country when he was 4 years old. If you think he has allegiance to Canada, then don't vote for him.
Don't need to.By the way, please show me all of the people who plan to or want to vote for him and are supporters who are having massive concerns about where he was born.
:doh
He was born a Canadian Citizen.
Here is his one and only Birth Certificate.
Being born in another country to a US citizen, he was granted citizenship under our laws.
He is a citizen by statute. Not a natural born citizen.
:doh
He was born with the allegiance.
That is the condition of his birth.
Matters not one bit that he later renounced that citizenship.
Don't need to.
Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.
:doh
He was born a Canadian Citizen.
Here is his one and only Birth Certificate.
Being born in another country to a US citizen, he was granted citizenship under our laws.
He is a citizen by statute. Not a natural born citizen.
:doh
He was born with the allegiance.
That is the condition of his birth.
Matters not one bit that he later renounced that citizenship.
Don't need to.
Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.
Wrong.The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien ; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
Wrong.
The weight and legal authority says exactly the opposite.
The 14th Amendment construes who is a Citizen. Not a natural born citizen.
Again;
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett ()
Argued: February 9, 1875
Decided: March 29, 1875
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
He wasn't granted. He was born with it.Nobody said he wasn't given Canadian citizenship at birth. I could deliver a child in Canada tomorrow and he's automatically granted citizenship. That doesn't prove he has allegiance to Canada.
Don't need to. Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.So I guess by your last statement you can't show me any Cruz supporters who are worked up about or concerned with the fact he was born in Canada.
:lamoIn other words, the people who are concerned about Cruz's country of birth are either not going to vote for him anyway for any number of reasons, or they truly believe the birther nonsense about him and won't vote for him because of it. Like I said.
As I already pointed out.The people that would vote for Cruz despite the fact that he was born in Canada with Canadian citizenship, are probably that same crowd that had their knickers in a knot about Obama. Selective constitutional adherence.
He wasn't granted. He was born with it.
And his allegiance to Canada is a condition of his birth. HE was born with it.
He was granted US citizenship by law.
Don't need to. Your statement was a blanket statement as shown.
:lamo
You did not say that. You said "only".
You made a blanket statement.
It was false.
The people that would vote for Cruz despite the fact that he was born in Canada with Canadian citizenship, are probably that same crowd that had their knickers in a knot about Obama. Selective constitutional adherence.
:dohOkay, well, carry on with your Birther theories.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?