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

They merely need to clarify existing law

The statutes aren't as clear as you believe they are, you believe the statutes as they are today were the same back in 1970. Hint: they've changed atleast 4 times since then. Statutes can always be altered. changed, or removed.

 

The federal govt uses the 1812 case of the Schooner Exchange for person found within the jurisdiction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

From Plyler v Doe

And yet you cant even give a cite that makes that argument, and the only links you have given both work against your claim. WKA even states Congress has the power to limit sin ce the 14th Amendment is declaratory of existing law

 

Plyler is current precedent.

Thank you for proving your own argument wrong.

I have no idea how you think that quote in anyway helps you?

WKA specifically proves you wrong. And plyler is the final nail in your coffin.

 

OMFG The Schooner Exchange set the precedent for the Feds in 1812. Do you even know what the word precedent means? Here are the precedents set by Plyler

http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/plylerprec.html

Where in there does is state anything about federal jurisdiction?

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

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.[/QUOTE]

The lVX Amendment doesn't grant citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, the lVX Amendment wording is being amended because to many people have a problem comprehending the intent of the authors of the lVX Amendment and the meaning and definition of words as they were used during the 19th Century. The wording of the lVX amendment is being dumbed down for stupid people.

Why do you keep bringing up Plyler vs Doe. ? It has nothing to do about what citizenship is. It's a non unanimous SCOTUS decision that I have to pay for educating another foreign country's children.

 

Specifically does so in plain English.

An amendments wording can't be amended. A new amendment is needed to repeal it.

The wording is in plain English. Birthers are just incapable of comprehending reality.

Because it defines jurisdiction in regards to the 14th amendment.

True. But it defines jurisdiction.

And defines jurisdiction.

 

The statutes are the same since 1950..........

 

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—

(1)by inserting (a) In general.— 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 ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ 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’s parents is—

(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—

(1)by inserting (a) In general.— 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 ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ 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—

(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

http://www.14thamendment.us/index.html

 

Right. Can't do that. Need a new amendment.

 

No they are not, even Raytri pointed out that 8USC1401(g) changed in 1981, the statutes have changed fairly often over the years.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why would Congress even bring it up if they aren't allowed to change it? Gray (WKA) even states Congress can do it.

 

So where was that new amendment when indigenous native Americans were recognized as U.S. citizens in 1924 ? The original lVX Amendment wording specifically said that native Americans who didn't pay taxes were not citizens. You don't see those words today in the lVX Amendment do you ?


Intent, intent, intent of the authors of the Constitution, not making (*)(*)(*)(*) up to further the Marxist agenda by using cultural marxism like the political left in America has adopted. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf

 

Same reason they tried repealing the ACA 47 times.

He didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you define Marxism for us and give us some policy examples please?

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

That has nothing to do with anything, Congress can repeal the ACA, they can even change it.

Maybe then you can explain exactly what he means with this paragraph

Its quite clear it is in the power of Congress to qualify to whom they choose to allow birth right citizenship "within the US". Since the 14th BRC clause is merely declaratory in form

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states: Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

Yes, can you ?

 

>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post Deleted<<<

The U.S. government spent a lot of money training me to kill commies. I happen to be one of the few million of tens of millions who were trained to kill commies who was able to put that training to practice. I was told I was good at it.

Marxism is the political theories of Karl Marx who was a communist.

Maoist are also communist who adopted Mao Zedong theories of communist revolution.

Today's progressives are Marxist and Maoist who are hiding behind the progressive label.

Cultural Marxism is a tactic that socialist who broke away from CPUSA during the 1950's adopted from Marxism to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans. It is therefore totalitarian in nature.
Agitate the minorities, all whites are racist, agitate, use words like homophobe, xenophobe, racist, bigot, wingnuts, agitate some more.

 

No. Try here..........http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism

 

Ted Cruz was granted US citizenship under the statutory provisions of naturalization in U.S. Code &#8250; Title 8 &#8250; Chapter 12 &#8250; Subchapter III &#8250; Part I &#8250; § 1401 > Section (c):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

Congress cannot grant natural born citizenship as natural born citizenship is a birthright of the person based upon the critieria of "born in the United States... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (Jus Soli) as enumerated the 14th Amendment.. Congress is limited by the Constitution to creating uniform laws of naturalization under Article I Section 8.

The easiest way for the layman to understand is to simply address the fact that if Title 8 did not exist at all (i.e. there were no naturalization laws) would Ted Cruz be a US citizen? The answer is no because he doesn't meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment because he was not born in the United States and was not subject to the laws of the United States when he was born. It was only after his parents filed an application for his citizenship under our naturalization laws contained in US Code Title 8 that Ted Cruz became a US citizen.

 

Marxism is the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.

People toss out accusations like "cultural Marxism" without knowing their meaning.

 

Did Cruz's mother lose or renounce her US citizenship?

 

It is irrelevant. Natural born citizenship refers to the "Inalienable Right of Citizenship" established by Jus Soli (Latin - Right of Soil) and not Jus Sanguinis (Latin - Right of Blood) and that is what the 14th Amendment enumerated. An inalienable right cannot be dependent upon another person but instead must be solely inherent in the person. An inalienable right is also non-transferrable so a "right of citizenship" of the parent cannot be transferred to the child. That is why the citizenship of the parent cannot bestow an inalienable right citizenship upon the child.

Once agian all we have to imagine is whether Ted Cruz would be a US citizen if Title 8 did not exist and the answer is no. He was granted citizenship based upon statutory law where his parents (or after age 21 he could have) filed for naturalized citizenship under Title 8 provisions. That citizenship is not granted based upon birth as the case of Leeland Davidson, also born in Canada to two US citizen parents demonstrated.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/world-war-ii-vet-finds-citizen/

A "natural born citizen" is not required to submit any documents to the US government to obtain citizenship. Leeland Davidson did subsequently file for citizenship under the provisions of Title 8 (naturalization) and was granted that citizenship but for 95 years he had not been a US citizen.

 

My brothers, who are all senior citizens, were born overseas and all are natural born US Citizens from birth, Shiva.... They never had to submit any documents.. They received US passports shortly after birth at the US Consulate.

 

They had to submit documents to obtain the US passport. I'm a natural born citizen (born in Santa Monica CA) and even I had to submit documents to obtain my US passport.

As noted in the case of Leeland Davidson he was unable to obtain a US passport for a trip to Canada in 2011 because he was a foreigner. Of note he didn't require a passport to go to Canada, his birth certificate granted him that right because he was a natural born Canadian citizen, but he would have required the passport to return to the United States based upon post 9/11 changes in our border policies with Canada.

Just like Leeland Davidson,Ted Cruz was also a natural born Canadian citizen as well as being a naturalized US citizen. He had dual citizenship. A person can only be a natural born citizen of one country and ironically, to my knowledge, only Canada and the US recognize "natural born citizenship" based upon Jus Soli. Under Canadian law, just like US law, Ted Cruz was allowed to renounce his Canadian citizenship but that did not change the fact that he was a natural born citizen of Canada and not the United States.

On a final note in the Supreme Court decision of the United States v Kim Wong Ark the Supreme Court expressly established that the Congress had no statutory authority over the "Natural Right of Citizenship" established by Jus Soli as enumerated in the 14th Amendment. The Congress can neither infringe upon or grant "natural born citizenship" under the US Constitution as it is an enumerated and protected right under the Constitution.

 

I had to show my US passport to return to the US.. every time.. and I was born in Alabama.

The document that was submitted to the US Consulate was the record of the birth from the hospital... My parents showed their US passports.. the baby was footprinted and his passport was issued. There are thousands of American kids born in the oil camps since the late 1940s and they are all natural born US citizens.

 

Not having actually dealt with the naturalization of a person born in a foreign country to parents that are US citizens I'm unfamiliar with the process but the citizenship is still granted based upon the naturalization laws of Title 8. How that is documented is something I'm unaware of but the fact remains that if Title 8 did not exist then your brothers would not be US citizens because they were not born in the United States.

 

Ted Cruz's father was not a US Citizen, He was a US LPR at the time, he was still a Cuban National. It was the 1940 and 1952 INA's that conferred citizenship upon Ted, but only after his family moved back to the US when he was 4 and he then accrued his 5 year requirement and took an oath to the US did he receive his US Passport when he was 16 for a High School trip to England.

The codes as they are written today are not the codes as they were written in the past, they have changed rather frequently over the years.

Exactly.

The only requirements for Cruz to become a citizen was to meet the requirements set forth in the 1940 and 1952 INA's, which was to come to the US and be physically present for a set amount of time before a certain age, then the other requirement was to take the oath at the age of 21 or before. Thus he is a Naturalized Citizen.