Posted on 09/02/2013 9:58:26 AM PDT by xzins
He’s also a natural born leader!
What is your position on Rubio and Jindal? I am not saying that you, or any one else, would support them if one of them were to run, but clearly if you apply the history of case law and the constitution that both would eligible as well.
OMG...I’m almost out of popcorn!!
Cruz is.
ODumbo is.
End of story.
Yes, the other thread at 700+ posts had become unwieldy.
were both of his parents citizens of the united states when he was born? Yes or no
Obama set the precedence that it doesn’t matter.
we have actually had other presidents that were not natural born.
Natural Born Citizen is no longer a Constitutional issue. Precedent has made it irrelevant.
Hypocrisy is what will plague a Cruz run for President. Many “birthers” painted conservatives into a box on the issue. Cruz will constantly be hounded to denounce those conservatives. It could become a distraction, an opportunity at ridicule. The mistake was in how the birthers mishandled the situation. Next time ask questions, create doubt. But don’t make accusations.
Jindal is an anchor baby, born while his parents were here as students having every intention of returning to India (I believe) their native country. Jindal would have been a natural born citizen of India by our interpretation of law.
This would arguably preclude an anchor baby from being an NBC.
Rubio would be another anchor baby, but whose parents were Cuban refugees, with his mother early on pursuing citizenship in the US, and his father permanent resident status. I don’t recall if his mother had her citizenship before or after his birth. It would make a difference. That would make Rubio the child of two denizens or 1 citizen and 1 denizen, depending on the date of her citizenship.
read the quotes in the article
Unwieldy would be one word that could describe it. There are others....
Movie Theater Butter
Cue the 1500 word spam pasted-posts.
Didn’t there used to be a rule against copy/pasted spam; called it disruption??? Something like that.
This assertion is borne of a misunderstanding of American citizenship law.
It is this: American citizenship law does not now, and has never, recognized another country's citizenship law.
If a person is a U.S. citizen at birth, he is a U.S. citizen. Period. That he might also be a candidate for, say, Indian citizenship is of no moment.
At some future point, under the laws of India, he may opt for Indian citizenship. But, at that point, he loses his U.S. citizenship.
If you are a U.S. citizen at birth, you are a U.S. citizen -- regardless of how many other nationalities and citizenships you might be eligible for.
A lesser tolerance for it, surely.
I’ll admit.. when I see 18 inches of legalese text from past eras..
I be a’scrollin’ right past it. Willfully ignorant of such postings.
I said “arguably”. Didn’t say I’d win the argument. :>)
the naturalization act of 1790 was repealed
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.