Posted on 01/06/2016 3:40:06 PM PST by gwgn02
Trump lies again to disparage Cruz.
******************************************
Jeez...I don’t know whether that is contagious & is being transmitted from some of his panicked supporters, but it sure is not nice.....but it IS expected.
Until a few months after 9/11, passports were not required for travel between the U.S. and Canada. I visited Canada many times with only a birth certificate and drivers license.
So did I. Not many times but at least a dozen or more - and this was long before 9/11
You still can. My mother in law went with my wife to visit my daughters at college in Montreal this fall. I stayed home to get my son to his baseball games. She brought just a drivers license and birth certificate, and had no problem crossing both ways. It is just a lot easier to use a passport. A passport will also make life easier at the airport for domestic flights too.
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"
This passage was changed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 to read:
"SEC.3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States."
Cruz doesn't mention the 1795 repeal, nor does he address the term "citizens" as it pertains to parentage. These two passages from these two acts clearly define what natural born citizen means as someone born to two citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States because being born to two citizen parents outside the jurisdiction of the United States was defined as a "citizen" by the Congress of 1795.
Why the deceit? This also applies to Mark Levin as well. There is outright misrepresentation going on.
You dwell on the word “citizens,” and you argue the law means a child born abroad of two American citizens is a natural born citizen. You would be correct if the law read CHILD of American citizens (meaning a CHILD born abroad of two American citizens is a natural-born citizens.
The law clearly states CHILDREN of CITIZENS, both plurals, but that can only be read as a CHILD of a CITIZEN if there was only one child born of the union of the father and mother. In which case, only one parent need be an American citizen to have that CHILD a natural-born citizen.
Cruz claims that his condition is covered by the Naturalization Act of 1790 yet doesn't mention the fact that his condition is actually covered by the Act which repealed it in 1795.
The term "citizens" as I argue it is correct as any application of this Act would have been. applied on an individual case basis.
I am a Cruz fan, but I believe that this question should be answered by the courts before the General election. Ted Cruz should put this behind him before it gets a chance to become a major distraction.
If you will recall... it was people supporting Hillary’s campaign that brought it up with Obama to begin with. Only a fool would not believe that there is going to be a major double standard by the media with how they will handle this as compared to Obama. Cruz has been up front about all of this, but we must remember all of the effort Obama went to convince the electorate that he was born in Hawaii. If Obama’s people didn’t feel it was important... why was so much effort put into convincing us that he was not born abroad?
Oh, I agree, because the issue has now become a distraction.
Actually, you don’t. Nowhere in your cite is there a stand-alone term “citizen.” Perhaps if you posted the pertinent section your argument would hold more water.
Tell me where in that passage it says both parents have to be citizens. I see nothing in what you’ve cited to indicate that.
I find this hard to believe. If he is purposely avoiding it, there must be a reason, and it isn't a good one.
Can you post your cite? It would be a lot easier to follow the position you have taken.
Anyway, the matter of whether or not citizens as it pertains to parentage being singular or plural is secondary to the issue of "natural born citizen" being CHANGED to "citizen" as it applies to Cruz status.
I quoted the text from each of the Acts. They are easily found. Look up Naturalization Act of 1790, then of 1795, you will find multiple sources with the text.
Why did you chop off the second preposition in the phrase?
The complete phrase is "children of citizens of the United States".
The "citizens of the US" are all the citizens in the US.
Children of the citizens of the US, are all children of all citizens of the US.
Can you post your cite, so I can see to what you refer?
I want the specific cite upon which you rely. Post it. That way I can review side-by-side.
Brevity, as it was understood from the thread that “...of the United States” was the operative qualifier.
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.