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, 10:24 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,874,717 times
Reputation: 14345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post

The legislative history is clear... "born citizen" does not equal "natural born citizen."
Which means we would have to have three kinds of citizenship. And yet legislative history never says that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2016, 10:35 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,998 posts, read 44,813,405 times
Reputation: 13701
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Which means we would have to have three kinds of citizenship. And yet legislative history never says that.
What legislative history DOES say is that those born abroad to US citizen parents since 1795 are NOT natural born citizens. So Cruz is ineligible. Period.

What's important to note about this is that legislative history firmly establishes that "born citizen" does NOT equal "natural born citizen."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 10:40 AM
 
26,563 posts, read 14,441,941 times
Reputation: 7431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominftl View Post
I've heard that Marco Rubio may have a similar problem calling his citizenship into question also.
from ankeny v daniels:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Indiana appeals court defines "natural born citizen" - Obama Conspiracy Theories
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 10:43 AM
 
8,081 posts, read 6,958,439 times
Reputation: 7983
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
from ankeny v daniels:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Indiana appeals court defines "natural born citizen" - Obama Conspiracy Theories
2 problems

1. Indiana State Appeals Courts are binding ONLY to lower courts in Indiana

2.
Quote:
We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.
Which is the pertinent issue being discussed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 10:59 AM
 
8,415 posts, read 7,412,065 times
Reputation: 8757
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Nope. Check again...
You simply hold firm to your belief, demand that your opinion be taken as fact, invent historical events to support your belief, and then ignore first hand documentation that refutes your claims.

I'll say it again - You lie. Why would anyone believe a liar who says that she's not lying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 11:18 AM
 
26,563 posts, read 14,441,941 times
Reputation: 7431
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64 View Post
2 problems

1. Indiana State Appeals Courts are binding ONLY to lower courts in Indiana
correct ( altho the decision has been cited in multiple birther case decisions outside of indiana ). unfortunately the birthers dropped the ball and did not appeal to the SCOTUS ( i wish they had ).

Quote:
Which is the pertinent issue being discussed.
i was replying to a post specifically about marco rubio.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 03:04 PM
 
7,578 posts, read 5,325,444 times
Reputation: 9447
Where is Orly Taitz when the nation needs her!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 03:05 PM
 
8,415 posts, read 7,412,065 times
Reputation: 8757
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
Where is Orly Taitz when the nation needs her!!!
Maybe she's been posting to this thread all along?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 04:53 PM
 
26,563 posts, read 14,441,941 times
Reputation: 7431
the congressional research service has updated their report on "natural born citizen".

Updated Congressional Research Service report on presidential eligibility - Obama Conspiracy Theories
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2016, 08:25 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,871,874 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
the congressional research service has updated their report on "natural born citizen".

Updated Congressional Research Service report on presidential eligibility - Obama Conspiracy Theories
"At that link someone "CRJ" had an interesting
Cruz and Obama were not born under the window of Law between 1790 and 1795. If its Law you seek… and that seems a relevant [Fact] Here:
Let me argue in the #SCOTUS Court about the Laws or Facts [at the TIME of Birth].
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/688411311407939584
Go to the bottom of the page where the notes are. Look at number 1. Click on citizenship chart. The asterisks below it explain the laws that were in effect during time of both Cruz’s and Obama’s birth(s).
Policy Manuel
http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter4.html
1952-1978 Governing Law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
Derivative Citizenship” chart on gov website
McCarran Walter act was in effect during that time. Per that law, also known as Public law 414, Cruz was NOT a citizen at birth.
Section 320: Children born outside the United States of alien parent and citizen parent. Child does not receive US Citizenship unless alien parent naturalizes by time child turns 16.
There are over 400 sections to that act. That section remained in effect until 1978.
Ted’s Father, Rafael Cruz obtained Canadian citizenship in 1973 and ultimately became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005. Ted was 35 years old."


If this is true then Cruz was not even eligible to become a Senator.
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 07:44 AM.

© 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