Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm, 13 days, 800 posts and counting on Cruz's citizenship. I guess it is safe to say there is a "cloud" over his head. Just like with Romney and his Romney care, we have to spend precious time arguing that Cruz is a citizen for the rest of the election cycle if he gets nominated.
The 1790 Act deeming foreign-born children of US citizen fathers to be "natural born citizens" was REPEALED in 1795. I will grant that those foreign-born children of US citizen fathers born between 1790 and 1795 were "natural born citizens." But since 1795? No.
Furthermore, Congress had a chance in 2004 to re-instate "natural born citizens" status for the purpose of Constitutional Presidential eligibility purposes to foreign-born children of US citizens. They did not.
That eliminates any claim that born citizen = natural born citizen.
One can be a born citizenwithout being a "natural born citizen." Legislative history over the past several centuries proves exactly so.
Legislative history over the past several centuries does not prove your assertion.
Legislative history over the past several centuries actually seems to support the conclusion that there are only two types of citizens, those who are born citizens (natural-born citizens) and those who are naturalized citizens (not born citizens who become citizens by fulfilling the legislative criteria to make them citizens). Your version of history would have to support that there are three kinds of citizens, born citizens, natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens. Nothing in legislative history bears this out.
Legislative history over the past several centuries does not prove your assertion.
Indeed, it does. You can't assume born a citizen = natural born citizen when even Congress won't confirm such as recently as 2004.
Congress had a chance in 2004 to re-instate "natural born citizens" status for the purpose of Constitutional Presidential eligibility purposes to foreign-born children of US citizens. They did not.
Are they born US citizens pursuant to US law? Yes. Are they "natural born citizens" pursuant to US law? No. Congress failed to enact such status for them in 2004.
That eliminates any claim that born citizen = natural born citizen.
If the Founding Fathers had a problem with how the 1790 Act defined natural-born citizen, they would have addressed that issue. They addressed other issues, but they showed no interest in how the 1790 Act defined foreign-born children of American fathers as natural-born citizens. And foreign-born children of American fathers continued to have birthright citizenship after 1795. Which flies in the face of your assertions.
If the Founding Fathers had a problem with how the 1790 Act defined natural-born citizen, they would have addressed that issue.
They did. It was repealed just 5 years later in 1795, and natural born citizen status for citizens born abroad hasn't been re-instated since, despite the 2004 effort to do so.
Hmm, 13 days, 800 posts and counting on Cruz's citizenship. I guess it is safe to say there is a "cloud" over his head. Just like with Romney and his Romney care, we have to spend precious time arguing that Cruz is a citizen for the rest of the election cycle if he gets nominated.
Safe to say this is an issue because Trump fears competition. They could just carry-on and then let the nutcases argue about it if Cruz gets elected (which is highly doubtful anyway) as they did with Obama.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.