Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I've never heard of a challenge to someone's citizenship being restricted to their own party (or ANY party for that matter).Do you have a link for that?And the Democrats will do that if either one gets the nomination.Rubio is eligible, and Trumps ignorant statements just make him look like a fool. Also if you take a look a previous cases filed against the dear leader, the only entities that would have standing to challenge eligibility of a candidate are the political parties themselves.
I guess I didn't make myself clear, the republican party would have to challenge their candidate and likewise the dems would have to challenge theirs. According to previous rulings on standing it is up to the party to ensure eligibility before they place a candidate on the ballot. The one thing the courts didn't address is who ensures an independent is eligible.
I couldn't find the quote I was looking for in this link, but it gives a pretty good background and I think is a good predictor where any cases filed against Cruz or Rubio would go. Some of the cases were based on the same issues.
Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's fine, I'm not talking about how you or I feel about it. My point is that the Democrats will make an issue of it if for no other reason than to muddy the waters and raise doubts in the minds of the voters.That were here doing the process of becoming citizens and paying taxes and doing what regular citizens do. Going thru all the proper procedures. And had a child born here during that process. Rubio is american. Period.In the process? That's not citizenship. He's was not born to American citizens, he was born to potential American citizens.Hmmm. But..they were in the process and had visas. Not here illegally since they had those visas. I think Rubio is good to go.They had immigration visas. They were granted citizenship 4 years after Marco was born.Were Rubios parents citizens or illegals?
No need to be flippant, I'm not talking down to you. It's not my fault you can't find the link you were looking for.I've never heard of a challenge to someone's citizenship being restricted to their own party (or ANY party for that matter).Do you have a link for that?And the Democrats will do that if either one gets the nomination.
I guess I didn't make myself clear, the republican party would have to challenge their candidate and likewise the dems would have to challenge theirs. According to previous rulings on standing it is up to the party to ensure eligibility before they place a candidate on the ballot. The one thing the courts didn't address is who ensures an independent is eligible.
I couldn't find the quote I was looking for in this link, but it gives a pretty good background and I think is a good predictor where any cases filed against Cruz or Rubio would go. Some of the cases were based on the same issues.
Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What ever, the brief descriptions given in the link, like I said didn't include what I was looking for and at this point in time I not going to review them cases by case to read the actual rulings, so let's just say I misremembered and leave it at that. If you bothered to look at the cases in the link I think you will understand why a challenge will go nowhere.
Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.Anchor babies are anchor babies because they are natural born citizens, thus giving the parents who are not citizens some legitimacy (an anchor) to be in the US. The amount of legitimacy is debatable.
And how many illegal immergrant parents of American citizen citizen children were not deported and are at almost zero risk of being deported?Based on facts:Based on what?False!
True
'In 2011, there were at least 5,000 children in state custody or foster care because an undocumented parent or parents has been deported, according to a study released by the Applied Research Center, a New York-based think tank that focuses on racial and social justice issues. Some estimates put that figure even higher today. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent mandatory reports to the Senate that among other things revealed that during 2013, the agency deported 72,410 people who told federal authorities they have one or more U.S. citizen children.
Each of these children and their parents certainly know the "anchor baby" is not real.'
The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense
Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, subject to no other designation, regardless the immigration status of their parents.
Also idiotic and wrong is the rightwing birther lie that in order to be a natural born citizen, both of one's parents must be citizens, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
You can think that all you want. The US government says they are citizens by birth.Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.Anchor babies are anchor babies because they are natural born citizens, thus giving the parents who are not citizens some legitimacy (an anchor) to be in the US. The amount of legitimacy is debatable.
No need to be flippant, I'm not talking down to you. It's not my fault you can't find the link you were looking for.I've never heard of a challenge to someone's citizenship being restricted to their own party (or ANY party for that matter).Do you have a link for that?I guess I didn't make myself clear, the republican party would have to challenge their candidate and likewise the dems would have to challenge theirs. According to previous rulings on standing it is up to the party to ensure eligibility before they place a candidate on the ballot. The one thing the courts didn't address is who ensures an independent is eligible.
I couldn't find the quote I was looking for in this link, but it gives a pretty good background and I think is a good predictor where any cases filed against Cruz or Rubio would go. Some of the cases were based on the same issues.
Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What ever, the brief descriptions given in the link, like I said didn't include what I was looking for and at this point in time I not going to review them cases by case to read the actual rulings, so let's just say I misremembered and leave it at that. If you bothered to look at the cases in the link I think you will understand why a challenge will go nowhere.
You very well may be right, but you know as well as I that different standards have been applied to Obama that would never be applied to anyone else and we know why. The man has been protected at every turn since they began grooming him for the presidency.No need to be flippant, I'm not talking down to you. It's not my fault you can't find the link you were looking for.I've never heard of a challenge to someone's citizenship being restricted to their own party (or ANY party for that matter).Do you have a link for that?
I couldn't find the quote I was looking for in this link, but it gives a pretty good background and I think is a good predictor where any cases filed against Cruz or Rubio would go. Some of the cases were based on the same issues.
Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What ever, the brief descriptions given in the link, like I said didn't include what I was looking for and at this point in time I not going to review them cases by case to read the actual rulings, so let's just say I misremembered and leave it at that. If you bothered to look at the cases in the link I think you will understand why a challenge will go nowhere.
Sorry, I did find one case that stated the the political parties certified a candidates eligibility in GA, but I'm still looking. But the cases in the link I gave were mostly dismissed on lack of jurisdiction or lack of standing of the plaintiffs.
Being granted citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.You can think that all you want. The US government says they are citizens by birth.Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.Anchor babies are anchor babies because they are natural born citizens, thus giving the parents who are not citizens some legitimacy (an anchor) to be in the US. The amount of legitimacy is debatable.
I'm going with the US government's interpretation.Being granted citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.You can think that all you want. The US government says they are citizens by birth.Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.Anchor babies are anchor babies because they are natural born citizens, thus giving the parents who are not citizens some legitimacy (an anchor) to be in the US. The amount of legitimacy is debatable.
The term natural born citizen as used in the constitution comes from the book Law of Nations. Those who are not ignorant of US history know that.
" The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." ~ quoted from Law of Nations.
Liar.I'm going with the US government's interpretation.Being granted citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.You can think that all you want. The US government says they are citizens by birth.Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.Anchor babies are anchor babies because they are natural born citizens, thus giving the parents who are not citizens some legitimacy (an anchor) to be in the US. The amount of legitimacy is debatable.
The term natural born citizen as used in the constitution comes from the book Law of Nations. Those who are not ignorant of US history know that.
" The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." ~ quoted from Law of Nations.
Well except that IS not what the Constitution says nor the laws drafted by the Government to clarify said Constitution. It is clearly understood to mean anyone born on US Soil is a NATURAL Born Citizen irregardless of their parents nationality or citizenship. Further the law states that any child born of American citizens outside the Country are also natural born citizens.Being granted citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.You can think that all you want. The US government says they are citizens by birth.Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.Anchor babies are anchor babies because they are natural born citizens, thus giving the parents who are not citizens some legitimacy (an anchor) to be in the US. The amount of legitimacy is debatable.
The term natural born citizen as used in the constitution comes from the book Law of Nations. Those who are not ignorant of US history know that.
" The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." ~ quoted from Law of Nations.
Being granted citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.You can think that all you want. The US government says they are citizens by birth.Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.Anchor babies are anchor babies because they are natural born citizens, thus giving the parents who are not citizens some legitimacy (an anchor) to be in the US. The amount of legitimacy is debatable.
The term natural born citizen as used in the constitution comes from the book Law of Nations. Those who are not ignorant of US history know that.
" The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." ~ quoted from Law of Nations.
You very well may be right, but you know as well as I that different standards have been applied to Obama that would never be applied to anyone else and we know why. The man has been protected at every turn since they began grooming him for the presidency.No need to be flippant, I'm not talking down to you. It's not my fault you can't find the link you were looking for.I've never heard of a challenge to someone's citizenship being restricted to their own party (or ANY party for that matter).I couldn't find the quote I was looking for in this link, but it gives a pretty good background and I think is a good predictor where any cases filed against Cruz or Rubio would go. Some of the cases were based on the same issues.
Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What ever, the brief descriptions given in the link, like I said didn't include what I was looking for and at this point in time I not going to review them cases by case to read the actual rulings, so let's just say I misremembered and leave it at that. If you bothered to look at the cases in the link I think you will understand why a challenge will go nowhere.
Sorry, I did find one case that stated the the political parties certified a candidates eligibility in GA, but I'm still looking. But the cases in the link I gave were mostly dismissed on lack of jurisdiction or lack of standing of the plaintiffs.
You are incorrect.Well except that IS not what the Constitution says nor the laws drafted by the Government to clarify said Constitution. It is clearly understood to mean anyone born on US Soil is a NATURAL Born Citizen irregardless of their parents nationality or citizenship. Further the law states that any child born of American citizens outside the Country are also natural born citizens.Being granted citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.You can think that all you want. The US government says they are citizens by birth.Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.Anchor babies are anchor babies because they are natural born citizens, thus giving the parents who are not citizens some legitimacy (an anchor) to be in the US. The amount of legitimacy is debatable.
The term natural born citizen as used in the constitution comes from the book Law of Nations. Those who are not ignorant of US history know that.
" The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." ~ quoted from Law of Nations.
The Constitution is not solely based on British common law.Being granted citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.You can think that all you want. The US government says they are citizens by birth.Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.Anchor babies are anchor babies because they are natural born citizens, thus giving the parents who are not citizens some legitimacy (an anchor) to be in the US. The amount of legitimacy is debatable.
The term natural born citizen as used in the constitution comes from the book Law of Nations. Those who are not ignorant of US history know that.
" The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." ~ quoted from Law of Nations.
Wok Kim Ark concluded that through English Common Law, which framed the Constitution, individuals born in the United States were natural-born citizens.
The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. ...United States v. Wong Kim Ark
"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.
The Constitution is not solely based on British common law.Being granted citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.You can think that all you want. The US government says they are citizens by birth.Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.Anchor babies are anchor babies because they are natural born citizens, thus giving the parents who are not citizens some legitimacy (an anchor) to be in the US. The amount of legitimacy is debatable.
The term natural born citizen as used in the constitution comes from the book Law of Nations. Those who are not ignorant of US history know that.
" The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." ~ quoted from Law of Nations.
Wok Kim Ark concluded that through English Common Law, which framed the Constitution, individuals born in the United States were natural-born citizens.
The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. ...United States v. Wong Kim Ark
"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.
Also, Blackstone's concept of a natural born subject was rejected by the framers of the US Constitution in favor of Vattel's notion of a natural born Citizen.
Liar.The Constitution is not solely based on British common law.Being granted citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.You can think that all you want. The US government says they are citizens by birth.Wrong. Anchor babies are not natural born citizens.
The term natural born citizen as used in the constitution comes from the book Law of Nations. Those who are not ignorant of US history know that.
" The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." ~ quoted from Law of Nations.
Wok Kim Ark concluded that through English Common Law, which framed the Constitution, individuals born in the United States were natural-born citizens.
The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. ...United States v. Wong Kim Ark
"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.
Also, Blackstone's concept of a natural born subject was rejected by the framers of the US Constitution in favor of Vattel's notion of a natural born Citizen.
Wok Kim Ark was handed down in 1896 and is the law of the land.
Until a ruling or law overturns it, people born in the US are natural born citizens.
But according to you in your other thread- Rubio is eligible- here are the very documents you cited claiming Cruz is not eligible- which show that Rubio is eligible.The article says, “Rubio was born in Miami. That makes him a natural born U.S. citizen under the Constitution.” It would be nice if the author could specifically quote the exact passage in the Constitution where it says anchor babies born to foreign nationals within the borders of this country are defined as natural born U.S. citizens.
Trump 'slam dunk' tweet questions Rubio's eligibility to run
