Posted on 03/07/2016 6:15:57 PM PST by Citizen Zed
Edited on 03/07/2016 7:14:25 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
You have a good point, but you could have avoided some embarrassment by have checking the appropriate public law.
Here it is
http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
Section 301 (4)
Its the same language to be found in USC 8 Section 1401. This law was passed in 1952, and as noted in USC 8 is still in effect. Mr. Cruz was born in 1970.
You have a good point, but you could have avoided some embarrassment by have checking the appropriate public law.
Here it is
http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
Section 301 (4)
Its the same language to be found in USC 8 Section 1401. This law was passed in 1952, and as noted in USC 8 is still in effect. Mr. Cruz was born in 1970.
Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship via Pub.L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7); 66 Stat. 236
“You are confused.”
You are so incompetent at reading the law, you cannot even manage to read and comprehend the law when it is handed to you as a direct quotation on a silver platter. Then you have the idiotic foolishness to falsely accuse someone else of being “confused.”
“You are cherry picking from the drivel put out by the birthers who find it convenient to dig up these extinguished ashes once again.”
And that comment makes you a liar. As I have pointed out many times in other FR threads, I’ve been researching and investigating the Presidential eligibility issue since I was given an assignment to write about it and the Goldwater campaign in 1964. That is quite a few decades before anyone invented the “Birther” epithet for ignorant fools like you to carelessly sling around to defame people.
“You have selected the wrong clause, a common error among those who have not bothered to examine the law. Try this one:
(d) 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 of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”
As I already informed you, you are erroneously quoting once again from USC 8, Section 1401 paragraph (d), which was not the law applicable to Ted Cruz, because that Section number, paragraph, and exact quote did not yet exist when Ted Cruz was born. They came into existence on 10 October 1978, Almost eight years AFTER Ted Cruz was born. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 was the naturalization law applicable to Ted Cruz when he was born in 1970, and I gave you the quotation which naturalized Ted Cruz as a U.S. citizen.
“This is the law that applies to Mr. Cruz, like it or not. This is why the birthers have become a laughing stock.”
If there is anyone who is a laughing stock, it has to be you, given the way you falsely and ridiculously claim a naturalization law made Ted Cruz a natural born citizen eight years before it was made a Public Law by Congress. That kind of argument is about as ignorant and lunatic as it gets.
“If you like Mr. Trump, support him, vote for him, dream that he will deliver us from this nightmare, but I don’t believe that will happen.”
There you go again with yet another false and ignorant comment. I have not endorsed Trump, and I have not rejected Trump. In fact, I was drafted and elected as a delegate to the Republican convention after refrained from volunteering as a delegate and warned the voters I could support any Republican candidate except Cruz and Rubio, die to their ineligibility. Interestingly, the voters who drafted me as a delegate included Cruz supporters who understood I could not in good conscience vote for Ted Cruz at the convention. It is unfortunate you cannot demonstrate the same respect for honesty and integrity as they have done.
“I will certainly support Trump if he is the nominee of the Republican Party, but I think that conservatives can do better.”
Any of the Republican candidates are more suitable for the office than ineligible candidates who treat the Constitution and its defenders with the contempt they have demonstrated.
“As for your argument of blatherings, you are on a fool’s errand, just like the populist rapture for Trump. Spend some money and go to a competent Constitutional and immigration lawyer. He will take your money, but he will laugh you out of his office.”
I have far more decades of experience and knowledge with this subject than all but a handful of the attorneys and judges who have been involved in this controversy. Some attorneys who have discussed this topic in depth with me have expressed their appreciation and commented how they had learned new information they were unaware of before. This was particularly true of the historical precedents. Your insulting comments reflect badly on you. Furthermore, you are in effect trying to use insults to cover up the fact the U.S. Supreme Court commentary clearly disqualified Ted Cruz when it said: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” The only means by which Ted Cruz could acquire U.S. citizenship was by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which authorized Ted Cruz to acquire naturalized U.S. citizenship only by derivation from his mother’s purported U.S. citizenship. Without that naturalized citizenship, Ted Cruz would have been unable to acquire any kind of U.S. citizenship.
Marco Rubio also acquired his U.S. citizenship by the authority of the same U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, so he too is a naturalized U.S. citizen and is ineligible to lawfully serve as POTUS.
I take it that you are a Trump supporter. Confused on a number of points probably. We’ll never know until the courts take the issue on something that I predict will never happen. Cruz and Rubio did manage to get on all of the primary state ballots. If one is the nominee (probably won’t happen), I also predict that that person will be certified for the general election. There will be another hue and cry, but it will never amount to anything.
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.