Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-18-2016, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
16,569 posts, read 15,278,266 times
Reputation: 14591

Advertisements

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2016, 08:29 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,884,155 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, it says they're "citizens."

Look at legislative history...

The 1790 Act deeming foreign-born children of US citizen fathers to be "natural born citizens" was REPEALED in 1795.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.

Read all of this, and take note of the specific mention of "repeal":
naturalization laws 1790-1795

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.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-...bill/2128/text

That eliminates any claim that born citizen = natural born citizen.

One can be a born citizen without 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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 08:35 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
InformedConsent, you're using an appeal to ignorance logically fallacy to state your case.
Ignorance? How is complete legislative history ignorance?

Quote:
The repeal of a law doesn't negate the English common law concept that 'natural born citizen' equates to 'citizen at birth'
Cite exactly where English common law states that 'natural born citizen' equates to 'citizen at birth.'

I'll wait...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 08:37 AM
 
2,499 posts, read 2,627,203 times
Reputation: 1789
I would be interested if there is verification that his mom voted in Canada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 08:37 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
And yet the 1795 Act says nothing about the 1790's Act making foreign born children of American fathers natural-born citizens.
Exactly, because it was REPEALED.

Did you not read the 1795 Act?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,544,683 times
Reputation: 24780
Default Thoughts on Cruz's citizenship?

Honestly, it's a complete nonissue.

Cruz will only enter the White House as a visitor, never as resident.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 08:44 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
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.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-...bill/2128/text

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 08:48 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,884,155 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Exactly, because it was REPEALED.

Did you not read the 1795 Act?
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 08:55 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,795 posts, read 13,265,578 times
Reputation: 19952
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:48 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top