Posted on 03/31/2016 12:18:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
You are asserting that the citizenship of the parent is the determinative factor, the controlling factor. Do I understand you correctly?
Your lies get stale.
Citizen at birth, maybe but not a Natural Born Citizen.
Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are NOT the same.
Oh, please. I knew this was a problem long before Trump said anything about it.
Obama is ineligible as well but the cases filed wrt him were guaranteed to lose since they were based on the claim that he was born in Kenya. His father was never a citizen so he could not have been a natural born citizen.
In spite of Cruz’s claim this issue is NOT “settled law”, anything but.
Since Cruz is not going to be the nominee these cases do not benefit Trump. He has nothing to do with them.
I am entitled to my opinion.
Have all the opinions you want but the FACT remains that many people, including myself, knew this would not be ignored. Those whistling past the graveyard may have been ignorant of the problem but they still pretend that Cruz can win the nomination, too. So who cares?
These were absolute BS. She was on a polling list. It did not designate her voting status. It is used for local census data.
“THey’ll back Cruz, once all the courts have ruled in Cruz’s favor.”
The courts ruled that obamacare was legal, the courts ruled that it is legal to kill unborn babies. I’m sure that the courts were right when they said that “Separate, but equal” was constitutional. They are not always right.
Just because the courts have ruled on something doesn’t make me change my mind about my core beliefs.
He was born in Canada. That is not going to change, no matter if the courts say that he is a “Natural Born Citizen”, I will not be voting for him, just like I will never say that it is OK to kill an unborn child or say that obamacare is right!
Might as well just go back to square one then:
I’ll NEVER vote for Liberal-yesterday Conservative-tomorrow Trump.
He was born in Constitutional-lightweight land. That is not going to change, no matter how much the man who “advises himself” tries to educate himself on the matter.
Then why are the records sealed?
RE: Citizen at birth, maybe but not a Natural Born Citizen.
The issue then becomes what did the framers mean by “Natural Born Citizen” <=—— this is being debated by a lot of legal scholars and so far, I have not seen a consensus.
I am asserting that the citizenship of the parent at the time of the child’s birth is the determinative factor.
Yes, you understood me correctly.
> I am asserting that the citizenship of the parent at the time of the child’s birth is the determinative factor.
Then the statute is meaningless.
In fact, every statute granting citizenship to the foreign-born child of a citizen is meaningless.
Good luck.
> I am asserting that the citizenship of the parent at the time of the child’s birth is the determinative factor.
In post 95 you agreed that the citizen parent must meet the requirement of statute. Now you assert the citizenship of the parent is the determining factor.
Your thinking is inconsistent and does not connect cause with effect.
What is this?
RE: In post 95 you agreed that the citizen parent must meet the requirement of statute. Now you assert the citizenship of the parent is the determining factor.
I see no conflict.
If the parent meets the requirement of the statute AT THE TIME OF THE CHILD’s birth, the parent is an American citizen — LEGALLY. The child then takes the parent’s citizenship AT BIRTH.
How is the parent’s citizenship AT THE TIME of the child’s birth then, not the determinitative factor?
You are not connecting cause with effect.
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.