The Committee on Immigration and Naturalization....but...but..."Ted Cruz birth abroad citizenship has nothing to do with naturalization..." This permitted moms pass "citizenship" ..to child born abroad,...
Posted on 02/13/2016 9:12:01 AM PST by Dana1960
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. a retired colonel with 29 years of experience in the US Army Reserve, argues that Senator Ted Cruz entered the United States illegally as a child in 1974. His parents failed to file a CRBA form which is required by US law. Ted’s parents did not fill out the required form until 1986.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Sorry, I do not agree. Every freedom in the constitution including our rights as human beings are under attack and without an American at the helm, we are subject to more of what we now have in the white House. We must elect a true American with an American heart.
I agree with you on many of the things you’ve said as i often do, but on this instance i am adamant. The LEADER of this country is the one we need to be careful in selecting because he is the one who will guide us over the cliff to final destruction and victory of the New World Order, or someone who will veer off in time to save us as a nation. Another politician will NOT accomplish that. So it’s time to play a wild card. Trump.
Besides never quote Lincoln to me. He is the one who destroyed States Rights and I hold him in ZERO esteem. HE did NOT obey the constitution and we are paying the price now.
That is, if what you picture-quoted were to actually be in some way binding. Stating it was referenced "by SCOTUS 1948" is a less than convincing way to present it. What particular 1948 Supreme Court case? Let's see how the Court treated and applied it, if at all. Yet if they did treat it as authoritative and binding, then you lose, sir. Undone by your own jpg. Again.
I do not recall precisely what it was about the last time you figuratively shot yourself in the foot-es with one of your posted images (as those would relate to the context of ongoing conversations around here, particularly my own words) but I do recall having pointing it out to you.
This is at least the second time your own lines of legal "evidence" (presented in jpg. form) have gone against what I otherwise have understood is your position.
If you're just playing around and not intending anyone take you serious, then ok, I guess.
This old fish has spit plenty of hooks before, and ain't that easy to drag into the boat.
(When I was a commercial fisherman someone once asked me "what kind of fish are you looking for?." I answered, "dumb ones, the smart ones are too hard to catch.")
Wrong! Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 has never been changed by an Article 5 convention and subsequent ratification by the states, therefore it stands as written! Vattel is the source, not Blackstone or British common Law. Vattel clearly says Both parents citizens and born on the soil. A natural born American citizen is one who cannot be anything other than American.
There are other antiquated sources which speak towards notions of Law of Nations.
There are other antiquated sources which speak towards notions of Law of Nations.
The snatches of this and that imagery which you persist in posting is like I said — just so much noise.
.................................................
Perhaps you find it amusing to dismiss out of hand the Law of Nations and Vattel regardless of the FACT that they have been cited in hundreds of cases throughout this nations history. Vattel is THE source for most of our Constitution. Understand that and perhaps you can understand something besides the “noise” of today’s mindless, uneducated scum who would destroy our Constitution because they (like you evidently) find it antiquated noise and out of date. The Constitution is not a living document to be played with and changed by the whims of the moment. it means what it says and is the LAW of the LAND.
Exactly. And there has been no Article 5 Convention of states with regard to the “natural born citizen” being anything other than what Vattel described.Therefore, the constitutional limitation on the eligibility to run for president stands as written.
Yep! You got it right!
He’s a US citizen by birthright -
This is such a distraction -
If trump has standing to sue like he says, he should go for it.
The fact that he doesn’t speaks volumes...
A U S Citizen is NOT necessarily a Natural Born U.S. Citizen. There are TWO Distinctions.
A tree is a plant but not all plants are trees.
The fact that the Republican Party has allowed two unvetted unqualified people to run for president is what is “disturbing.”
Remember, they’re the “good guys”
Not for me. I’m tired of working to elect someone and then the minute they get to Washington they turn 180 degrees to become a RINO. I am voting TRUMP. He isn’t bought and paid for. He is the ONLY “No strings attached.”
So, if you were convinced he was eligible, he’d be your guy, or Trump would be your guy?
Trump because he is what this country needs right now. We need a leader, someone of the Patton style. Someone who will break a few dishes to get positive things done. Cruz is just another lawyer-politician sold our to the New World Order. Examine his votes and you will see he says one thing but votes another. He’s a master of glib spin.
The Committee on Immigration and Naturalization....but...but..."Ted Cruz birth abroad citizenship has nothing to do with naturalization..." This permitted moms pass "citizenship" ..to child born abroad,...
*lots of tin foil in that post*
No thanks!
Too bad for you.
That was to even things out since previously the “lineage’ went through the father in our paternalistic society. When women got the right to vote, it followed shortly thereafter that citizenship could pass through them to the child. Does not affect natural born as both parents must be citizens and child born on the soil.
Note this is about naturalization, not natural born.
who’s Ann??? LOL
I did no such dismissing out of hand.
The remainder of your ranting lecture isn't worth replying to, since it is the very same Constitution that empowers Congress to regulate, including enacting laws pertaining to citizenship (thus introduce changes and refinements) provided those changes do not run afoul of the Constitution.
If that not be so -- from where and when (what era?) are we to look towards in regards to codification of law regarding just about anything one can think of?
See dstorm’s post; it has links to Ted’s mom’s birth cert.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3396601/posts?page=411#411
Bill, you make good points about the paperwork and awareness.
This could explain why she applied for the crba later on, when Ted needed a passport to go overseas for a high school competition.
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.