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.
You're not at liberty to release Cruz's documents? What, now you're a CIA agent?
You sure have an overactive imagination.
The fact is, I can't release his documents because I'm not Cruz.
Quote:
That's a post that discusses a court case that has nothing to do with the claimed existence of Ted Cruz's naturalization papers.
It's a recent (1971) SCOTUS case in which it was ruled that those born abroad to a US citizen parent aren't automatically US citizens, and some aren't even eligible for US citizenship via their US citizen parent at all. That's the point.
It's a recent (1971) SCOTUS case in which it was ruled that those born abroad to a US citizen parent aren't automatically US citizens, and some aren't even eligible for US citizenship via their US citizen parent at all. That's the point.
Yes, but the reasons that they disqualified this citizen don't apply to Cruz. One never lived in the United States, the other lived most of his entire life in the United States, as a citizen of the United States.
The fact is, I can't release his documents because I'm not Cruz.
It is well documented that InformedConsent embezzles funds from a charity for 9/11 Victims, but I'm not at liberty to release those documents.
See how that's total bs? I'm guessing....not.
Quote:
It's a recent (1971) SCOTUS case in which it was ruled that those born abroad to a US citizen parent aren't automatically US citizens, and some aren't even eligible for US citizenship via their US citizen parent at all. That's the point.
It was a court case that rescinded a man's U.S. citizenship that was recognized at his birth, because the man failed to meet congressionally mandated residency requirements. In 1978, Congress repealed the section of the law that stripped Bellei of his citizenship.
Your citation has nothing to do with Ted Cruz, except in the lonely recesses of your mind.
Yes, but the reasons that they disqualified this citizen don't apply to Cruz. One never lived in the United States, the other lived most of his entire life in the United States, as a citizen of the United States.
The fact of the ruling is that in 1971 Bellei was disqualified as a US citizen even though he was born abroad to a US citizen father because he didn't meet the legislative requirements to acquire US citizenship via the circumstances of his birth. The same is true of Cruz. The determination of Cruz's citizenship at birth is bound by the 1952 Public Act: 414, Sec 301.
As such, Cruz doesn't qualify for citizen at birth. He would have had to naturalize as a minor via immigration by being a close relative of his US citizen mother or naturalized himself at the age of 18+.
It was a court case that rescinded a man's U.S. citizenship that was recognized at his birth
Not rescinded, his citizenship at birth was actually never recognized unless he met legislative requirements. Bellei applied to have his alleged US citizenship recognized later, but because he failed to meet legislative requirements, his claim to US citizenship was denied by SCOTUS in 1971.
Not rescinded, it was actually never recognized. Bellei applied to have his alleged US citizenship recognized later, and was denied by SCOTUS in 1971.
Cruz's US citizenship has been recognized, by the State of Texas, by the US government, by the Republican party. While you may opine that he wasn't entitled to that citizenship, that is only your opinion. Clearly, the State of Texas, the US Government and the Republican Party all opine otherwise.
Cruz's US citizenship has been recognized, by the State of Texas, by the US government, by the Republican party.
Based on what? It is a FACT that Cruz's birth circumstances don't meet the requirements of Public Act 414, Sec 301, so on what is the recognition of his citizenship based?
Based on what? It is a FACT that Cruz's birth circumstances don't meet the requirements of Public Act 414, Sec 301, so on what is the recognition of his citizenship based?
As if there are no illegal aliens in Texas...
His citizenship HAS been recognized. You can interpret statutes all day long, but your interpretation (especially when injecting words not written in the statute, like "immediately") has no authority behind it. And you have no standing to challenge Cruz's citizenship in a court of law. And that court of law is likely to respect the State of Texas, the US Government, and the Republican Party's authority to interpret the statute far more than any birther's authority.
State exactly how. He's not eligible for US citizenship at birth under Public Act 414, Sec 301, so HOW did he become a US citizen?
Quote:
You can interpret statutes all day long, but your interpretation (especially when injecting words not written in the statute, like "immediately")...
No interpretation necessary. The law itself uses two distinctly different terms: "prior to" and "at any time prior to." Reading (4) and (5) of Sec 301 illustrates the difference:
Pages 73-74:
Quote:
(4) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United
States who has been physically present in the United States or
one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period ofone
year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom
is a national, but not a citizen of the United States
(5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States
of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has
been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying
possessions for a continuous period of one yearat any time prior
tothe birth of such person
Cruz's parents lived in Canada "prior to" his birth, so according to (7) which would designate Cruz's citizenship at birth eligibility, Cruz doesn't qualify for citizen status at birth.
Not rescinded, his citizenship at birth was actually never recognized unless he met legislative requirements. Bellei applied to have his alleged US citizenship recognized later, but because he failed to meet legislative requirements, his claim to US citizenship was denied by SCOTUS in 1971.
In truth, Bellei's U.S. citizenship was recognized by the State department - in 1952 at the age of 11 Bellei was issued a U.S. passport.
You are the one insisting that he never was a U.S. citizen.
Also, this is interesting....
From Rogers v Bellei:
Quote:
The facts are stipulated:
1. The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei (hereinafter the plaintiff), was born in Italy on December 22, 1939. He is now 31 years of age.
2. The plaintiff's father has always been a citizen of Italy, and never has acquired United States citizenship. The plaintiff's mother, however, was born in Philadelphia in 1915, and thus was a native-born United States citizen. She has retained that citizenship. Moreover, she has fulfilled the requirement of § 301(a)(7) for physical presence
This is a Supreme Court case that directly contradicts InformedConsents opinion on Ted Cruz's mother's U.S. residency - 'at any time prior to' and 'prior to' are recognized by the Supreme Court as being equivalent.
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.
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.
