Posted on 01/30/2016 5:34:51 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Via the Free Beacon, we've reached the stage of Trumpmania where the same media that used to routinely predict that every new Trump "gaffe" would finish him off now heralds everything Trump does as carefully calculated Machiavellian genius. Trump has convinced them to their bones, not without reason, that everything they thought they knew about presidential politics is wrong and every move he makes is right. Case in point: Skipping the debate four days before Iowans caucus is genius. Why? Because Trump's a genius and he thinks it's a good idea, even though there are lots of really obvious perils in a move like that. Same goes for this attack on Cruz, I assume. Suggesting that Cruz isn't a U.S. citizen at all because he wasn't born here is genius. Why? Well, Trump thinks it's genius, and he has had success in driving Cruz's favorable numbers down in Iowa this month by questioning his eligibility. Case closed, right?
Let's think strategically. Assume you're Trump and you've just won Iowa. Who are you worried about now? Answer: Whoever looks to be the strongest center-right contender in New Hampshire. That's probably Marco Rubio, especially if he finishes strong in Iowa, which he may well do. The special danger that Rubio poses, not just to Trump but to everyone, is that he can pull from both sides of the field as others drop out. Some conservatives will never support him because of amnesty, but some will. And plenty of moderates will. If Trump is headed for a two-man race with Rubio then he should be thinking already about how to lure Cruz's voters, some of whom are open to Trump because he's a populist but some of whom are open to Rubio because he's more conservative than Trump is. Trump should want to do everything he can to tear down Cruz at this point by attacking his record without doing something that angers persuadable Cruz fans so much that they opt for Rubio over Trump out of spite if forced to choose. (Cruz doesn't have the same problem with Trump fans. None of them are going to Rubio if the race comes down to Rubio and Cruz, so even if Cruz alienates them, the worst thing they'll do to him is stay home.)
Accusing Cruz of being an "anchor baby" in Canada and of possibly not even being a U.S. citizen is, I think, the sort of attack that'll alienate Cruz voters more than garden-variety stuff like "Cruz doesn't play well with others." It's dirty pool in a way that attacks on his record in the Senate aren't. What Trump's doing here is suggesting that the "natural-born" clause in Article II isn't just a qualification for the presidency but a bright-line rule for citizenship generally. If you were born on U.S. soil, Trump's hinting, you're a citizen. If you weren't, and weren't later naturalized, you aren't. That's not true, though: Congress sets the rules for citizenship, and there's no question that Cruz qualified per the statute that was in effect when he was born in 1970. The only question is whether he can lawfully run for this office under the Constitution. By conflating those two ideas, citizenship and Article II eligibility, Trump's basically accusing Cruz of being -- ta da -- an illegal immigrant. And not just an illegal immigrant, but an illegal immigrant in two different countries. That's what the "anchor baby" business is all about: I've never read anything suggesting that Cruz's parents were in Canada illegally when he was born and used his birth as a way to establish legal residency, but that's what most people think of when they think of "anchor babies." (An "anchor baby" could also be used by legal residents to extend their legal residency in a country.) "Anchor baby" is doubly stupid as applied to Cruz since his parents didn't actually use him as a long-term anchor in Canada. They moved to the U.S., of which his mother is a citizen, when he was a toddler. Trump's essentially down to arguing that not only is Cruz weak on amnesty, he is amnesty. If he ends up losing the caucuses and fades from the race, I wonder how it'll sit with Cruz to think that Trump outmaneuvered him by questioning his loyalty to America and even his right to be here. Once upon a time, I thought he'd endorse Trump if he dropped out as part of a broad populist offensive against "the establishment." Now I wonder. Accusing Cruz of being an "anchor baby" in Canada and of possibly not even being a U.S. citizen is, I think, the sort of attack that'll alienate Cruz voters more than garden-variety stuff like "Cruz doesn't play well with others." It's dirty pool in a way that attacks on his record in the Senate aren't. What Trump's doing here is suggesting that the "natural-born" clause in Article II isn't just a qualification for the presidency but a bright-line rule for citizenship generally. If you were born on U.S. soil, Trump's hinting, you're a citizen. If you weren't, and weren't later naturalized, you aren't. That's not true, though: Congress sets the rules for citizenship, and there's no question that Cruz qualified per the statute that was in effect when he was born in 1970. The only question is whether he can lawfully run for this office under the Constitution. By conflating those two ideas, citizenship and Article II eligibility, Trump's basically accusing Cruz of being -- ta da -- an illegal immigrant. And not just an illegal immigrant, but an illegal immigrant in two different countries. That's what the "anchor baby" business is all about: I've never read anything suggesting that Cruz's parents were in Canada illegally when he was born and used his birth as a way to establish legal residency, but that's what most people think of when they think of "anchor babies." (An "anchor baby" could also be used by legal residents to extend their legal residency in a country.) "Anchor baby" is doubly stupid as applied to Cruz since his parents didn't actually use him as a long-term anchor in Canada. They moved to the U.S., of which his mother is a citizen, when he was a toddler. Trump's essentially down to arguing that not only is Cruz weak on amnesty, he is amnesty. If he ends up losing the caucuses and fades from the race, I wonder how it'll sit with Cruz to think that Trump outmaneuvered him by questioning his loyalty to America and even his right to be here. Once upon a time, I thought he'd endorse Trump if he dropped out as part of a broad populist offensive against "the establishment." Now I wonder.
Did you know that “Jeb” is for John Ellis Bush and Ike’s name was actually Dwight Davis Eisenhower?
I do not want Trump to knock it off. I want this issue to be resolved now! Whatever Trump is doing now, Jeb or Hillary will do later.
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."
The previous post was for out of wedlock. Cruz's parents were married, so the above paragraph applies.
Do we know if Cruz's mom met the 10 year residency and the 5 year after age 14 requirements?
So there is a big question about whether Cruz is a natural born citizen, and a small question about whether Cruz is even a citizen.
After “The Letter” this will all be a moot point.
“If you want me to vote for you Donald, tell what you believe in; I don’t need you to bash your opponents.”
Are you that unknowing or unobservant of American politics. American politicians use to kill each other in duels. Andrew Jackson killed a man in a duel before he was elected president. Now that is some kind of bashing.
Since his campaign roll out last June, cite a few of those flips back and forth. I mean statements from him directly, not accusations from people like you.
FUDT
I'm fed up with your childish, self centered behavior.
Yeah, there was no issue with Obama either. /s
3 months ago Trump said Cruz was a citizen. Now he says he isn’t. And yes, if trump becomes POTUS he will seek revenge on all those who spoke against him. Like all Tyrants.
I personally believe Cruz to be a NBC, though I think he did himself no favors by having it still hanging out there going into election season.
My conservative brother, on the other hand, is very dissatisfied with the notion of anyone being eligible who could have claimed dual or foreign citizenship at any point in their lifetime. He will not support Cruz for that reason alone.
this is getting so silly.
This argument doesn’t even make sense.
If he's a Canadian anchor baby.. that implies he's not truly Canadian ... which means he is an American.
Can we just focus on the important issues and stop with this made up silly crap?
A Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) is official evidence of United States citizenship, issued to a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents, who meet the requirements for transmitting citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)..
Where is the CRBA?
There is a paper trail, Ted sealed the records because he is not a natural born citizen.
Oh bull! This is something Cruz needs to solve and put behind him. I can’t believe he hasn’t already done it. “Precarious” indeed.
Yawn.
You cited the section of that document that applies to unmarried parents. Ted Cruz's parents were married in 1969. He was born in 1970.
Here is the correct section:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in WedlockSo, it's "acquires," not "may acquire."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.
They would be US citizens but not natural born citizens unless their father was also a US citizen and the site in France was a United States terrority, like an embassy or a military base.
The highest standard was reserved for POTUS.
This my opinion and I have reason to believe - due to what has been recorded as Cruz’s own answer to the question - that this was also Cruz’s opinion:
Cruz: quote Two citizen parents and born on the soil. unquote
The only way for this to be truly settled is for the SCOTUS to rule on it but I agree with the stricter rules and one of the reasons is Barack Obama, supposedly born on the soil of one citizen parent and one foreign father.
I suppose if Cruz gets away with this Obama can reasonably wonder why he got so much grief especially when he produced documentation, however shaky, of being born in the USA.
Not much of an issue to base your entire campaign on. Ducking Donald should let us know what he’s done in his past that makes him even remotely conservative. Not an impossible request, but six months have gone by and all we get are nasty Twitter fits and phoney birther nonsense..zero substance.
Ted is a popular shortened form of Edward. Remember the late Edward Kennedy was called Ted. Did not mean to equate Kennedy with Cruz though.
And that makes him equal to Obama on this issue.
I consider Rubio to be equal to Obama too, because Rubio's lawyers are trying to squash the eligibility lawsuit against Rubio by claiming the plaintiff doesn't have standing.
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.