Posted on 01/06/2016 6:03:47 PM PST by OddLane
Or semiliterate Freepers are fools for insinuating answering a reporter’s direct question is “raising an issue.”
How can you define something you don’t identify in the text of the definition? Your opinion doesn’t make something exist that doesn’t exist. Quote this definition of yours.
Please note this article from 1/23/15 - ONE YEAR AGO -
Oldest reference I have found, and Trump raised it then, then again in the summer, said no problem in August, and recently again. This is a year in the making and you can paint it as innocent if it so fits your needs but facts are not on your side. He is trying to cast doubt on his closest competitor, like the others, without going full Alinsky which is why the right commentators got on him for the last time he attacked Cruz. I don’t care if he attacks Cruz but he could at least be HONEST.
WEST DES MOINES, Iowa – Billionaire Donald Trump, the most prominent “birther†to question Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, asserted Friday that Sen. Ted Cruz must clear up legal doubts about his own eligibility due to his birth outside the United States.
Related
“It’s a problem. It could be a difficult problem, but he admits that he was born in Canada,†Trump told reporters in Iowa on the eve of the first major gathering of 2016 presidential hopefuls.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/01/donald-trump-says-ted-cruzs-canadian-birth-could-be-a-difficult-problem-for-2016-bid.html/
Stop making sense. This thread is not about that. LOL
Uh, sure. You do realize that the Solicitor General is responsible for representing the US in constitutional matters before the Supreme Court. Right?
However all those people who were born before the Constitution are dead now.
If you became a US citizen after 1790, it's either because you were born one or you were naturalized into one.
Just because I am the grandson of four and son of two natural born US citizens does not mean that I am any more natural born a US citizen than Cruz with two natural born grandparents and one natural born parent, or Trump with zero natural born grandparents and one natural born parent.
Born of citizen parents- (plural)
40 years of age-
14 years residency.
Point?
ALLEGIANCE!
Allegiance.
Allegiance.
Allegiance.
Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution enumerates the rules for naturalization (who does and does not need to be naturalized) exclusively with Congress.
In one of the first acts of Congress, Naturalization act of 1790, clearly sets the precedent that children born to a citizen parent shall be as naturally born.
The current will of Congress, with regards to who is a citizen at birth is expressed in Title 8 section 1401
Sorry, but law only requires one, with certain prior residency requirements within CONUS for that one parent.
That is all true, but the recent kerfluffle is in response to a question he was asked by a reporter...he (Trump) did not bring it up. He merely said it is being talked about and it is a concern for Republicans. He did not raise it himself. Is he coy, Yes, and it is fair game, just as is Cruz’s ability to reply in kind if he chooses to. It’s politics. What do you think will happen when it is just those two left, they’re not going to have a beer summit together.
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this wasnt contrived by both of them to get this all out in the open ahead of time. Basically takes the topic off the table now.
Sorry, but law only requires one, with certain prior residency requirements within CONUS for that one parent.
I think 1 parent qualifies for “citizenship” if born outside of the CONUS..”NBC” requires two “citizen parents”, and born in CONUS.
(That is what I read when this obama fiasco spooled up years ago).
It was George Romney who was born in Mexico.
The law DOES NOT require two citizen parents:
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
PING
NBC
More on what constitutes a NBC from Harvard Law
No doubt about it, I need a refresher course on US Civics
That same feeling has been felt from the very beginning. They work as a team, and do a darn good job of it. It’s like watching a new version of Dancing With the Stars would been seen (using my imagination as I’ve never watched DWTS)
Screw the Naturalization Act of 1790. It was REPEALED by the Naturalization Act of 1795 and your precious little definition was CHANGED to “citizen”. You are putting forth a dishonest argument, and purposely so because you were made aware of the repeal by me in post number 35. Get lost with your crap.
And the naturalization act of 1795 was also repealed as well as others until, following the chain, you get to the current law which is expressed in Title 8 section 1401.
You are the one who is putting forth a dishonest argument as you were made aware of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.