Why a Trump-Cruz ticket could be next after South Carolina debate

Fox News ^ | January 15, 2016 | Douglas E. Schoen

[2ndDivisionVet]

Thursday night's debate isn't going to change the polls. Donald Trump will remain on top nationally and slightly ahead in Iowa. And he will maintain his wide lead in New Hampshire.

Ted Cruz will remain in second place with a decent chance of taking Iowa.

And the rest of the pack will stay largely where they are with Rubio in third place, and representing the strongest option that the GOP establishment is offering this cycle.

But what is new from after Thursday night's debate is the possibility of a Trump/Cruz alliance as we move through the primaries. Indeed, for the first time Trump floated the idea of taking Cruz as his vice president. Cruz didn't say no. And when Cruz suggested that Trump could be his vice president, Trump said "I don't think so" which turned into a laugh and they moved on.

A Cruz/Trump ticket would combine a lot of what GOP voters are looking for - and they would condense much of the vote. To be sure, there would be many who would be disappointed and disillusioned by such a ticket: having South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley deliver the rebuttal to the State of the Union address and talk of a brokered convention indicates that there are those opposed to a firebrand anti-establishment ticket....

[Fai Mao]

“On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

So, especially given the Goldwater case would someone who was born in a US territory be a Natural Born Citizen?

For example the Governor Puerto Rico or Guam?

As a Guam citizen I can’t vote for President but could someone born on Guam legally be President?

Trump/Calvo 2016

[SWAMPSNIPER]

[Yosemitest]

Country or territory of birth does NOT matter, ACCORDING TO THE LAW AS WRITTEN TODAY, just so long as the candidate meets ALL of the requirement of the law at the time of their birth.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, list the powers given to the Congress.
The third item on the list IS the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States."
A year after the Constitution was adopted, Congress passed the first law that established a "uniform rule of naturalization": The Act of March 26, 1790.
The act was just the first in a series of laws addressing the issue of naturalization, ...

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law. ...
In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again. ...
After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.
The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65) that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries, especially Asian countries,
but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY It FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives



For those who actually want to know THE LAW, HERE IS THE LAW as legislated and APPROVED BY CONGRESS according to the United States Constitution:

The ABC's of Immigration: Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States
by Greg Siskind
All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States (with the very minor exception of certain children of diplomatic personnel).
This is perhaps the only simple rule of US citizenship.
One of the most complicated areas of US citizenship law involves the passage of citizenship to children born outside the US to one or more US citizen parents.
While naturalized US citizens are treated like natural born citizens, which includes those who are deemed citizens even when born outside the US, in almost every respect, there is one important office that only natural born citizens can hold - - the presidency
(though expect to see efforts in Congress to change this if Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger decides to run for President).
Also, a person who is a citizen from birth cannot be denaturalized (though denaturalization rarely ever occurs).

The rules determining when such children are citizens are extremely detailed, and vary a great deal depending on when the child was born since the laws changed several times in the 20th century.

What are the rules for people born before May 24, 1934?

Persons born abroad before May 24, 1934 to a US citizen father who had resided in the US at any point before the birth are considered US citizens at birth.
The status of the mother did not matter unless the child was born out of wedlock.
There were numerous legal challenges to this rule, claiming that it violates equal protection by treating the children born to US citizen women different than those born to US citizen men.
The issue was never fully resolved by the courts, but in 1994, Congress passed a law retroactively granting citizenship at birth to children born abroad to US citizen women.

In 1940, Congress passed a law making illegitimate children born abroad to US citizen women citizens if the mother had resided in the US.
However, under this law, if the child was legitimated by the foreign national father before his or her eighteenth birthday, the child would not be considered a citizen.
In 1998, the Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the requirement that a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen woman be legitimated before his or her eighteenth birthday.
The decision was reaffirmed in the 2001 US Supreme Court decision Nguyen v. INS which held that differing requirements for out-of-wedlock children of US citizen men versus US citizen women are constitutions.

The US citizen parent must have resided in the US prior to the birth.
This residence can be in the US itself, or in certain US territories after certain dates.
The residence can have been while the parent was a minor, and there is no length of time for which the parent must have resided in the US.

What are the rules for people born between May 24, 1934 and January 13, 1941?

In 1934, Congress passed a law allowing US citizen parents, regardless of their gender, to pass citizenship to their children born abroad.
If both parents were citizens, only one was required to have resided in the US, and as with the previous law, there was no required length of time that the parent must have resided in the US.

However, if one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the child would lose their citizenship if they did not either reside in the US for the five years immediately prior to their eighteenth birthday or, within six months of turning 21, take an oath of allegiance to the US.
These requirements were gradually relaxed between 1934 and 1940.

Illegitimate children born aboard between 1934 and 1941 became citizens under the general provision, and because the child was considered to have only one parent, no requirements were imposed that could result in the loss of citizenship.

What are the rules for people born between January 14, 1941 and December 23, 1952?

As before, children born abroad to two US citizens, with one parent having resided in the US, the child was a US citizen at birth.
No further action was required to maintain citizenship.

When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, however, the rules changed substantially.
To pass citizenship, the citizen parent must have resided in the US for at least 10 years before the birth of the child, and at least five of those years had to be after the parent turned 16.
Because this rule made it impossible for parents under 21 to pass citizenship, in 1946 the requirement was amended to create an exception for parents who had served in World War Two.

Originally, for children born during this period to retain US citizenship, they had to reside in the US for five years between the age of 13 and 21.
However, an exception was made for children of US citizens who were employed abroad by the US government or a US company.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother who met the residence requirements were automatically citizens, and they retained US citizenship even if legitimated by the foreign national father.
For a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen father, to obtain US citizenship the child must have been legitimated before the age of 21.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.
An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.

What are the rules for people born on or after November 14, 1986?

Children born abroad to two US citizen parents, one of whom has resided in the US prior to the birth of the child, continue to be US citizens at birth, and need take no special actions to retain citizenship.

Children born to one citizen parent and one foreign national will obtain citizenship at birth if the citizen parent resided in the US for five years before the birth, with two of those years after the age of 14.
The child does not need to take any special action to retain US citizenship.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother will be US citizens if the mother resided in the US for one year prior to the birth of the child.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father will acquire US citizenship if the following conditions are met:


• There is an established blood relationship between the father and the child,
  
  
• The father was a US citizen at the time of the birth,
  
  
• The father has agreed to financially support the child until it is 18, and
  
  
• Before the child is 18 it is legitimated, or the father acknowledges paternity in a document signed under oath

While these are general rules, Congress has continually amended and revised many laws relating to citizenship, particularly those dealing with the requirements for retention of citizenship.
If a person believes that they have a claim to US citizenship, they should consult with an attorney for a full examination of that possibility.

[grania]

Perhaps Trump/Sessions

I don't think Sessions has the inclination or the personality to be VP. I'd also wonder about having two old guys on the ticket....actuarially you could end up with a President Ryan. Then there's Jeff Sessions being necessary there if the US Senate is evergoing to straighten out.

Jeff Sessions is without a doubt are most loyal, knowledgeable conservative leader. But President?....he'll be much better as the behind-the-scenes guy in the US Senate.

Rubio is the one who doesn't go away.

[Resettozero]

Trump and Cruz clearly respect each other, and they pull their punches in a way the FR groupies don't.

You make two good points with one sentence. I agree.

[RKBA Democrat]

You’re correct. And I’m not one to pull my punches. One of the myriad advantages of not being a political candidate.

I think a Trump/Cruz ticket likely although I don’t favor it. I believe St. Raphael of TPA is a very slick, very polished politician. I believe Dave Brat would be a better choice as VP.

Political reality is what it is and I think it likely Cruz will be the VP if he can get the NBC thing cleared up in the courts. Then Trump can say “look, the courts have weighed in, its settled.” Otherwise I think he’s correct in noting that it’ll be an issue hanging over Cruz’ head.

[RKBA Democrat]

Trump won’t join the suit. It’s not to his advantage. Actually he might even file an amicus in favor of Cruz if it looks like he’s going to walk away with the nomination. He wouldn’t want the issue hanging out there over his likely VP choice.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


The entire Ted Cruz - Donald Trump ACT was a brilliant masterpiece ....

they DEVOURED over 7:30 minutes of debate time with their ACT ...

while Kasich, Marco, Jeb, Christy and Ben Carson were condemned to SILENCE ...

meanwhile Ted Cruz for the FIRST TIME showed his comic genius, with Donald Trump as the straight man ...

Finally, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump took the STRATEGIC opportunity to select each other as their Vice Presidential candidate ...

Sheer political genius !!!!



Iowa Caucus Predictions (30 GOP Delegates) : February 1, 2016

Ted Cruz ..... 40 %
Donald Trump ..... 30 %
Ben Carson ..... 10 %
Marco Rubio ..... 10 %
Chris Christy ..... 5 %
Jeb Bush ..... 5 %



New Hampshire Primary Predictions (23 GOP Delegates) : February 9, 2016

Donald Trump ..... 35 %
Ted Cruz ..... 30 %
Chris Christy ..... 10 %
Jeb Bush ..... 10 %
Marco Rubio 10 %
Ben Carson 5 %



South Carolina Primary Predictions (50 GOP Delegates) : February 20, 2016

Ted Cruz ..... 45 %
Donald Trump ..... 35 %
Chris Christy ..... 5 %
Jeb Bush ..... 5 %
Marco Rubio ..... 5 %
Ben Carson ..... 5 %



Florida Primary Predictions (99 Winner-Take-All GOP Delegates) : March 15, 2016

Ted Cruz ..... 40 %
Donald Trump ..... 30 %
Jeb Bush ..... 15 %
Marco Rubio ..... 15 %



.

[fingers_crossed]

I agree, I don’t think Cruz makes a good “outfront” person such as a VP. I think the VP may not come from any of the people currently campaigning in the primary. There are lots of people out in the country that would make good VPs.

Trump doesn’t really need a VP to shore up support, such as McCain did when he chose Palin. So Trump can go for who he thinks he can use most effectively. I like Tim Scott the senator from S.Carolina.

[Principled]

Bfl

[RoosterRedux]

Cruz's comment about NY values set Trump up for an out of the park hit with the bases loaded. And when Cruz applauded as Trump slapped the ball, it seemed even more so.

My first thought was that Cruz and Trump had planned a Trump/Cruz ticket from the get-go.

Cruz knew the birther issue was a potential problem when faces the democrats and realized the best way to put it to bed was to seek resolution before going on the ticket as Veep.

By clearing the issue up as Veep, it would be a de facto non-issue when Cruz runs for the Oval Office.

Trump and Cruz would clear Cruz's eligibility issue up with a declaratory judgment or Congressional resolution (ala John McCain), then go on to pull in the conservative base, anti-establishment Republicans, independents, and blue collar democrats...and win.

[cookcounty]

None of the top 5 or 6 or 7 will accept position #2. Maybe Fiorina would.

[Guenevere]

Trump -Cruz alliance?
Not if you heard Trump this morning live, on Morning Joe.

Trump thinks Cruz really hurt himself last night, with the New York issue.

[Guenevere]

I have been a Trump Sessions fan and even more so now!!!!

[txhurl]

WARRIOR/WONK BUMP, BOBALU! TRUMP/CRUZ 16!

[RummyChick]

All that mess you posted quotes the wrong law. Obama was born out of wedlock to a bigamist father. Different part of statute.

[RummyChick]

Thomas said they are evading the PR question on the Nbc clause.

[ConservativeWarrior]

“He shmoozes politicians to grease the skids to get the deal. He’ll do that with international leaders to build a coalition against the Muslim Brotherhood. He’ll shmoozes Senators and Congressmen to get the job done of rebuilding America. How do you think Admirals got to where they are?”

This. You don’t get to a position to run for POTUS without playing the game. You just don’t.

[mac_truck]

Not after the NY values comment...

[citizen]

I’ve been posting “Trump/Cruz 2016” for months.

It’s a natural, they compliment each other: Trump is the shrewd, patriotic showman/salesman - a front man - that brings the sometimes-voter out to the polls while Cruz is the shrewd, patriotic academic debater that adds necessary substance to Trump’s admittedly sketchy policy positions.

Trump wheels and deals, Cruz adds the glue, grease, nuts and bolts that will turn Trumps headlines into reality.

Trump ignores the MSM while schooling them in reality and defies all “conventional wisdom” just as he is doing now. Cruz does pretty much the same in dealing with Congress and DC in general.

The way these two will work together will be something to behold!