Ted Cruz Drops Bombshell: Admits He's Not Constitutionally Eligible To Be President

Name any person, who was forced by Mr. Cruz to embrace his (Protestant) faith !

 

Refuted this 10 pages ago. Plyler v doe

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it's a natural born citizen.

 

He was not naturalized. He was a citizen upon his birth.

Yes it does. There aren't 3 types of citizen.

For birthright citizenship to anyone born on US soil. Not for Cruz, or those born outside our borders.

Yes,mthats is one ofmthee many things I've corrected you on on this thread.

WKA has no relevance to citizenship outside US borders.

Referring to obama and anyone born on US soil.

 

This is the crux of the issue.

Everybody but birthers defines "natural born citizen" to mean "citizen at birth."

Birthers claim there are different flavors of citizenship at birth, only some of which are "natural born."

To justify this, birthers cannot refer to any U.S. laws or legal rulings, since all of those support the concept that "natural born citizen" means "citizen at birth."

Instead, they make up BS distinctions-without-a-difference such as "jus sanguinas" vs "jus solis". It's akin to arguing that genre differences -- say, between mystery and romance novels -- means only mystery novels are non-fiction.

They refer to centuries-old foreign writings that at best were influences on the Founders, but can provide no evidence that the definitions they prefer were the ones meant by the Founders. (Just because a book was an influence on the Founders doesn't mean that every idea in that back was adopted, or adopted intact).

Birthers are essentially arguing "I don't care what the law actually says; here's what it SHOULD say." But they don't like the word "should", because that would demonstrate that whatever they think the law SHOULD say, it doesn't say that.

So instead they pretend that what they think the law SHOULD say is what the law DOES say.

Birthers are on the wrong side of the actual laws, the history of those laws, and logic. And then they compound the error by refusing to admit that what they're arguing is a SHOULD case, not an IS case. Which puts them on the wrong side of honesty as well.

 

Plyler has no bearing on the Federal Govt, it is nothing more than an equal protection case directed at the states. The federal govt doesn't even cite Plyler when it defines jurisdiction.

The child born outside the jurisdiction of the US is not natural born, their citizenship is conferred by Congress, without this conference they would be aliens, thus their citizenship is derivative, jus sanguinas, naturalized.

 

What country is Texas in?

Nope. If you are a citizen at birth you are a natural born citizen. There are not 3 types of citizen.

 

ALL my brothers are natural born US citizens and they were born outside the US... I went with my parents to the US Consulate and the babies were issued US Passports.

 

So the majority of legal scholars are birthers? The only children that are natural born are those born within the US (which includes US military bases abroad, US Consuls abroad, and US Territories), including as noted throughout WKA and the SCOTUS cases both prior and after. Now their are two sources for citizenship, either by being born on US soil, or by naturalization (conferred by Congress) by way of the Naturalization Acts which is what Cruz falls under, he was naturalized, he received conferred citizenship by was of naturalization. The only requirements for him to become a US citizen was to reside in the US prior to the age of 16, or have his father naturalize prior to him turning 16. Well we know his parents moved back to the US when he was 4 and his father finally naturalized in 2005 (way after he turned 16), per the 1952 INA.

LOL. So all those WKA quotes and cases to which Gray refers mean nothing? Gray defines it throughout WKA. And not one of the 3 of you have actually cited the case that deems natural-born to equate to a child born outside the US. None of you have actually justified your claims, you guys just keep exclaiming things, then when shown you really haven't a clue you fall back to calling others morons and retards.

So how about you give us a SCOTUS opinion that lays claim to a person born outside the US, on soil not under US jurisdiction, as being a natural-born US Citizen.

And yet those BS distinctions are by Congress and the INA's, otherwise a child born outside the US would be an Alien no matter the status of the parent(s). The source for which Cruz received his citizenship was naturalization (he was not born within the US or under US jurisdiction), thusly he is not and can not be a natural born citizen.

So SCOTUS opinion is irrelevant now?

The law doesn't say that persons born outside the US are automatically natural born, Congress doesn't make that claim neither does any SCOTUS opinion. Not even 8USC1401 makes that ignorant claim.

Pretending?? Those that can't back up their whines always fall back to demeaning the other with no cites whatsoever. Provide a cite from a SCOTUS opinion that says that a child born outside the US, not within US jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, until then your calling of names shows your ignorance.

You've presented neither law nor logic, and only whine that any citizen whether born within or out of the jurisdiction of the US to a citizen parent is automatically a "natural born" citizen, when that has been shown to be nothing but ignorance, repeatedly, and shown by actual SCOTUS opinion to be false.

 

The case was an EPC case directed at the State of Texas, it has no bearing on the BR clause. Not even the US Federal Govt uses Plyler in regards to jurisdiction. The US Federal Govt uses the 1812 case of the Schooner Exchange.

And yet you still are unable to provide any cite, you continue to whine this incessantly, how about you back it up instead? HINT: There is NO SCOTUS opinion that you will find that makes the ignorant claim you are making, not even in Congressional record.

 

Repeating refuted arguments doesn't change the fact that they have been refuted.

- - - Updated - - -

So what country is Texas in?

Nowhere in US law or court ruling will you find more than 2 types of citizen.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

A US Passport does not make one natural-born. Do you hold a US Passport? If you do then find the portion of it that states you are a natural-born citizen for having it. HINT: you wont find those words within that document, let alone anywhere.

You do realize that once a foreign national becomes naturalized he can obtain that very same US Passport that your brothers hold, right? The words within that document merely state that you are a US National and US Citizen.

 

Natural born is identical to citizen from birth........................

 

What ever happened to the native born ?

I suppose the revisionist just threw them under the bus.

 

Still waiting for you to give a quote and a cite to back up that assertion. There is no known SCOTUS ruling or Congressional statute that makes that inept claim.

And yet the USC recognizes atleast 4 different types. gofigure.

He received derivative citizenship by Congressional conference. Without an Immigration and Nationality Act, he would be born an alien. He was naturalized through an Act of Congress, even your own link to WKA makes that statement very clear.

So you still can't point to anything in particular, let alone the specific law that makes the claim that children born outside the US to a citizen parent is born a natural-born citizen.

Still showing your ignorance, nobody, I repeat nobody in the first page brought up Obama, you made reference to WKA very clearly as being the deciding factor of law that refutes the OP. Funny how that blew up in your face isn't it, but please keep denying what you clearly did, it only shows you to be that more inept.

SMFH still espousing utter stupidity.

I'm simply using your own link that you held in high regards in the first 2 pages of this topic. I can cite numerous other cases that also back up my understanding, whereas you have yet to cite one single case that backs yours up. imjusayn https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

If its so meaningless, why is it every citizenship case after 1898 refers to it?

And yet you did just that in comment 11 and comment 20 both on page 2 of this very thread.

Your ineptness carries such ignorance that you only make yourself look foolish. So please cite a specific law that states what you claim, a specific SCOTUS ruling that makes that claim, something other than your usual stupidity.

the only thing obvious is your inept ability to provide a cite that you believe backs up your inane claim, as I have already provided numerous quotes that back mine up.

LOL the shear ignorance you display is so asinine that there are no words to describe it. I have stated numerous quotes, specifically from WKA that show your interpretation to be, well, rather ignorant of comprehension.

Repeating this same tired meme without actually having refuted anything at all doesn't change the fact that you haven't refuted anything at all.

Only for those born within the jurisdiction, not out of the jurisdiction.

Do you understand the difference between a revision and a revisionist? Again you've shown yourself to be inept in comprehension.

 

MOD EDIT >>>RULE 4<<<
I guess Congress didn't get the message, right now Congress is following the Constitution, instead of making (*)(*)(*)(*) up, they are making it clear what birthright citizenship is under the intent of the Constitution.

The left aren't happy campers with this, they like to make (*)(*)(*)(*) up as they go along to further their radical political agenda.

S. 45: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015
Introduced:
Jan 7, 2015
Status:
Referred to Committee
on Jan 7, 2015
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s45

A BILL

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

1.Short title
This Act may be cited as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015.

2.Citizenship at birth for certain persons born in the United States
(a)In general
Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended&#8212;

(1)by inserting (a) In general.&#8212; before The following;
(2)by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (, respectively, and indenting such paragraphs, as redesignated, an additional 2 ems to the right; and
(3)by adding at the end the following:
(b)Definition
Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person born in the United States shall be considered &#8216;subject to the jurisdiction&#8217; of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) only if the person is born in the United States and at least 1 of the person&#8217;s parents is&#8212;

(1)a citizen or national of the United States;
(2)an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
(3)an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s45/text


H.R. 140: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015
Introduced:
Jan 6, 2015
Status:
Referred to Committee
on Jan 6, 2015
This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on January 6, 2015, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr140

I
114th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 140

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2015
Mr. King of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, and Mr. Brooks of Alabama) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

1.Short title
This Act may be cited as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015.

2.Citizenship at birth for certain persons born in the United States
(a)In general
Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended&#8212;

(1)by inserting (a) In general.&#8212; before The following;
(2)by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (, respectively; and
(3)by adding at the end the following:
(b)Definition
Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered &#8216;subject to the jurisdiction&#8217; of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is&#8212;

(1)a citizen or national of the United States;
(2)an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
(3)an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).
.https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr140/text


Related PF thread: -> Sen. Reid flipfloped on birthright citizenship
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=400772&p=1064833206#post1064833206

 

Ok? How does congress trying to change what is currently a natural born citizen have anything at all to do with you being wrong?

 

Congress isn't changing the intent of the lVX Amendment, they are just amending the wording of the Amendment so stupid people can understand the intent of the lVX Amendment.

 

Not clarifying... changing the laws as they apply to who is a US citizen from birth or a natural born US citizen......

If they are successful in changing the law as it pertains to anchor babies or US citizens born abroad, it won't be retroactive.

 

They are changing who currently acquires it.

 

if they are born within the jurisdiction of the US. a person born in the United States shall be considered &#8216;subject to the jurisdiction&#8217; of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) only if the person is born in the United States and at least 1 of the person&#8217;s parents is&#8212;

(1)a citizen or national of the United States;
(2)an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
(3)an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).

They are not changing anything, they are clarifying, since there is no law that states that children born to illegals is automatically a US Citizen. This is what Senator Reid brought up in 1993, this is a Democrat proposal.

It has nothing to do with children born abroad, it only has to do with children born in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

They are clarifying who acquires it if they are born in the US

 

Nope. They are changing who qualifies, which would require a new amendment repealing the 14th. Since currently anyone born on US soil is a US citizen.

 

No Amendment is needed, illegals already are considered to have never entered, therefor they are not in amity within the country. The only protections they have are the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, the 5th and 6th Amendment Due Process Clauses. Again from Wong Kim Ark

To go even easier, the administration in charge need only to reinterpret the policy as it exists. The Obama admin has changed this policy 3 times just since being in office.

- - - Updated - - -

They are clarifying who qualifies, Congress has every bit of authority to do so, your own Wong Kim Ark link makes that very clear.

 

How about a cite from a SCOTUS ruling that backs up the claim that children born to illegals do in fact receive BRC. HINT: you won't find one. The issue is in how you are interpreting policy as set by the admin in 7FAM1111. The other issue is that unless there is some sort of case brought about, it will continue to be assumed that because there hasn't been a case, then therefor they are. Congress, according to WKA, has the authority to limit BRC as I quoted above.

 

Well, they have to change current law...... That's all.

- - - Updated - - -

Read the statutes.. they are crystal clear..

 

Nope. WKA and plyler v doe.

[QUOGE] The only protections they have are the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, the 5th and 6th Amendment Due Process Clauses. Again from Wong Kim Ark[/QUOTE]
Nope. WKA and plyler v doe.

nope. They are changing who qualifies. A new amendment is required as the 14th amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on US soil.