If Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada, He Cannot Be President: PERIOD

[Toro]

Remember, lefties; you invented the term "birfer" now it's yours to roll in and enjoy the stink of shit you ginned up.

Enjoy, birfers!

Actually, the guy who first used the tern "birfer" was DiveCon, a conservative, at least here.

But he was a sane conservative who didn't believe bizarre, nutty conspiracy theories.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But he was a Canadian born citizen born to an American and Cuban living in Canada.

Yes.
He is a Canadian born American citizen born to an American and Cuban living in Canada.

If you only knew how uncomfortable that makes a lot of Republicans.

Doesn't matter to me though. I won't be voting in any GOP primaries but my Republican friends are and they don't like a Cuban Canadian running for president.

If you only knew how uncomfortable that makes a lot of Republicans.

Why would it?

they don't like a Cuban Canadian running for president.

We've almost survived a half American/half Kenyan 100% Commie, Cruz will be 10,000% better than that.

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

All this does is expose you Republicans for the pathetic hypocrites you are.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.

Isn't that the birther argument? What was their problem if Obama's mamas was an American? Seriously, this thread should be called birther hypocracy

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

Yes, and he's been an awful president. Cruz would be 10,000% better.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.
Isn't that the birther argument?


The birther argument was that if he was born in Kenya, or Canada for that matter, his mother didn't meet the other requirements needed to make him a citizen at birth.

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.

I just can't believe after all that brother bullshit you would consider nominating an anchor baby like Cruz.

What were those other requirements his mom didn't meet? I think you are just full of shit. All I ever heard was Obama want born in America. Then we find out Cruz and maybe even rubio wasn't either

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.


That's your problem. The requirement isn't based on what you think something sounds like.
You would have to research the law at the time Obama was born.

 

[sealybobo]

You just put words in my mouth. Hey Skylar, why are you folks from the far left really pitching for Cruz on this one? I'd like a three page paper, single spaced with an opening paragraph, body and conclusion here by 5:00pm today on that answer..

What isn't odd is your insistence on not understanding the law.

Is or was Ted Cruz also born a Cuban citizen- maybe- it all depends on Cuban law- which you don't know- and don't care about.

I defend Cruz's eligibility for the same reason I confronted Obama Birthers-

1. Birthers are idiots
2. I respect an American's eligibility regardless whether I agree or disagree with him politically.
3. Unlike Birthers.

And yes- you are now a Birther.

I don't think 1 of your parents being American makes you American.

1 where were you born?
2 what was your other parent?

I, and many Americans, will never think this qualifies as a natural born citizen. Not even close.

Better be born here to two illegal aliens.

Goodie for you

Meanwhile- by law- any American born to an American parent is a U.S. citizen.

Regardless of how much that bothers you.

But he was a Canadian born citizen born to an American and Cuban living in Canada. Does he have an original American birth certificate? Nope. He has a Canadian birth certificate from a Canadian hospital.

Just remember if an Isis American goes and fathers a bunch of Isis babies with foreign mothers. You'll have to let them all in. The ultimate sleeper cells.

Cruz is an American- and used to be a Canadian citizen too.

Ignorance of citizenship law is no excuse for ignorant posting.

How is Obama not eligible then? His mom was American?

You're ignorant, as fuck

Why do you think President Obama is not eligible?

President Obama is eligible because he was born in the United States.

Cruz is eligible because his mother was an American citizen when he was born.

Both are American citizens- regardless of who their fathers were.

Oh, so you aren't a further, because basically what Cruz proves is that brothers were full of shit. Even if Obama was born and raised a Muslim in Kenya, he was always eligible to be president, simply because mom was American. I didn't know that. I would have thought if Obama was born in Kenya he would not have been eligible.

Turns out the whole birth certificate argument was irrelevant. Doesn't matter where he was born. All that matters is Obama came out of an American woman. Got it

 

[Syriusly]

Remember, lefties; you invented the term "birfer" now it's yours to roll in and enjoy the stink of shit you ginned up.

Enjoy, birfers!

Remember Righties- Donald Trump is a Birther because Democrats are pulling his strings.......

 

[Syriusly]

What isn't odd is your insistence on not understanding the law.

Is or was Ted Cruz also born a Cuban citizen- maybe- it all depends on Cuban law- which you don't know- and don't care about.

I defend Cruz's eligibility for the same reason I confronted Obama Birthers-

1. Birthers are idiots
2. I respect an American's eligibility regardless whether I agree or disagree with him politically.
3. Unlike Birthers.

And yes- you are now a Birther.
Goodie for you

Meanwhile- by law- any American born to an American parent is a U.S. citizen.

Regardless of how much that bothers you.

But he was a Canadian born citizen born to an American and Cuban living in Canada. Does he have an original American birth certificate? Nope. He has a Canadian birth certificate from a Canadian hospital.

Just remember if an Isis American goes and fathers a bunch of Isis babies with foreign mothers. You'll have to let them all in. The ultimate sleeper cells.

Cruz is an American- and used to be a Canadian citizen too.

Ignorance of citizenship law is no excuse for ignorant posting.

How is Obama not eligible then? His mom was American?

You're ignorant, as fuck

Why do you think President Obama is not eligible?

President Obama is eligible because he was born in the United States.

Cruz is eligible because his mother was an American citizen when he was born.

Both are American citizens- regardless of who their fathers were.

Oh, so you aren't a further, because basically what Cruz proves is that brothers were full of shit. Even if Obama was born and raised a Muslim in Kenya, he was always eligible to be president, simply because mom was American. I didn't know that. I would have thought if Obama was born in Kenya he would not have been eligible.

Turns out the whole birth certificate argument was irrelevant. Doesn't matter where he was born. All that matters is Obama came out of an American woman. Got it

I am not a 'further' or a 'brother'.

Obama was eligible because he was born in Hawaii. Yes- the whole BC argument was just idiotic Birther BS.

Cruz is eligible because his mother was an American citizen.

And Birthers are idiots.

 

[sealybobo]

But he was a Canadian born citizen born to an American and Cuban living in Canada. Does he have an original American birth certificate? Nope. He has a Canadian birth certificate from a Canadian hospital.

Just remember if an Isis American goes and fathers a bunch of Isis babies with foreign mothers. You'll have to let them all in. The ultimate sleeper cells.

Cruz is an American- and used to be a Canadian citizen too.

Ignorance of citizenship law is no excuse for ignorant posting.

How is Obama not eligible then? His mom was American?

You're ignorant, as fuck

Why do you think President Obama is not eligible?

President Obama is eligible because he was born in the United States.

Cruz is eligible because his mother was an American citizen when he was born.

Both are American citizens- regardless of who their fathers were.

Oh, so you aren't a further, because basically what Cruz proves is that brothers were full of shit. Even if Obama was born and raised a Muslim in Kenya, he was always eligible to be president, simply because mom was American. I didn't know that. I would have thought if Obama was born in Kenya he would not have been eligible.

Turns out the whole birth certificate argument was irrelevant. Doesn't matter where he was born. All that matters is Obama came out of an American woman. Got it

I am not a 'further' or a 'brother'.

Obama was eligible because he was born in Hawaii. Yes- the whole BC argument was just idiotic Birther BS.

Cruz is eligible because his mother was an American citizen.

And Birthers are idiots.

In 7 years I never heard any of you say it didn't matter where the person is born. Some of you said Obama wasn't born here and we said he was. I think we all believed if he wasn't that'd be a problem.

And we gave McCain a pass because his dad was in the military. No brainer that it doesn't matter here if the person is born overseas. We all believed that was the exception.

No one ever said all you need is to be born to one American. This is absolutely lowering the bar. This disqualifies Cruz. But doesn't matter anyways. He's almost done

 

[sealybobo]

If you only knew how uncomfortable that makes a lot of Republicans.

Doesn't matter to me though. I won't be voting in any GOP primaries but my Republican friends are and they don't like a Cuban Canadian running for president.

If you only knew how uncomfortable that makes a lot of Republicans.

Why would it?

they don't like a Cuban Canadian running for president.

We've almost survived a half American/half Kenyan 100% Commie, Cruz will be 10,000% better than that.

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

All this does is expose you Republicans for the pathetic hypocrites you are.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.

Isn't that the birther argument? What was their problem if Obama's mamas was an American? Seriously, this thread should be called birther hypocracy

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

Yes, and he's been an awful president. Cruz would be 10,000% better.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.
Isn't that the birther argument?


The birther argument was that if he was born in Kenya, or Canada for that matter, his mother didn't meet the other requirements needed to make him a citizen at birth.

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.

I just can't believe after all that brother bullshit you would consider nominating an anchor baby like Cruz.

What were those other requirements his mom didn't meet? I think you are just full of shit. All I ever heard was Obama want born in America. Then we find out Cruz and maybe even rubio wasn't either

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.


That's your problem. The requirement isn't based on what you think something sounds like.
You would have to research the law at the time Obama was born.

Oh so the law was different that year. Go fuck yourself dipshit. Obama was born in America to an American mom. That was enough to get you guys whispering about his eligibility. This Cruz things a pip.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you only knew how uncomfortable that makes a lot of Republicans.

Why would it?

they don't like a Cuban Canadian running for president.

We've almost survived a half American/half Kenyan 100% Commie, Cruz will be 10,000% better than that.

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

All this does is expose you Republicans for the pathetic hypocrites you are.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.

Isn't that the birther argument? What was their problem if Obama's mamas was an American? Seriously, this thread should be called birther hypocracy

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

Yes, and he's been an awful president. Cruz would be 10,000% better.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.
Isn't that the birther argument?


The birther argument was that if he was born in Kenya, or Canada for that matter, his mother didn't meet the other requirements needed to make him a citizen at birth.

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.

I just can't believe after all that brother bullshit you would consider nominating an anchor baby like Cruz.

What were those other requirements his mom didn't meet? I think you are just full of shit. All I ever heard was Obama want born in America. Then we find out Cruz and maybe even rubio wasn't either

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.


That's your problem. The requirement isn't based on what you think something sounds like.
You would have to research the law at the time Obama was born.

Oh so the law was different that year. Go fuck yourself dipshit. Obama was born in America to an American mom. That was enough to get you guys whispering about his eligibility. This Cruz things a pip.

Oh so the law was different that year.

I realize you're not very bright, but yes, laws change. Durr.

Obama was born in America to an American mom.

If that's the case, he's eligible. If he was born in Kenya, then his American mom isn't the only issue.
Just as Cruz's American mom is not the only issue.

 

[Syriusly]

Cruz is an American- and used to be a Canadian citizen too.

Ignorance of citizenship law is no excuse for ignorant posting.

How is Obama not eligible then? His mom was American?

You're ignorant, as fuck

Why do you think President Obama is not eligible?

President Obama is eligible because he was born in the United States.

Cruz is eligible because his mother was an American citizen when he was born.

Both are American citizens- regardless of who their fathers were.

Oh, so you aren't a further, because basically what Cruz proves is that brothers were full of shit. Even if Obama was born and raised a Muslim in Kenya, he was always eligible to be president, simply because mom was American. I didn't know that. I would have thought if Obama was born in Kenya he would not have been eligible.

Turns out the whole birth certificate argument was irrelevant. Doesn't matter where he was born. All that matters is Obama came out of an American woman. Got it

I am not a 'further' or a 'brother'.

Obama was eligible because he was born in Hawaii. Yes- the whole BC argument was just idiotic Birther BS.

Cruz is eligible because his mother was an American citizen.

And Birthers are idiots.

In 7 years I never heard any of you say it didn't matter where the person is born. Some of you said Obama wasn't born here and we said he was. I think we all believed if he wasn't that'd be a problem.

And we gave McCain a pass because his dad was in the military. No brainer that it doesn't matter here if the person is born overseas. We all believed that was the exception.

No one ever said all you need is to be born to one American. This is absolutely lowering the bar. This disqualifies Cruz. But doesn't matter anyways. He's almost done

I don't know who you think you are speaking to- who this 'any of you' are but I have dealing with Birthers since shortly after Obama's inauguration. I have taken the time to read up on this shit- for 7 years.

So I know that Obama was eligible because he was born here- he is a natural born citizen.
John McCain is more complicated- he was not born here- nor was he technically a citizen at birth- which is what I consider the defining factor- he became a citizen by action of congress which made him retroactively a citizen. Congress took the time to pass a non-binding resolution saying they thought he was a natural born citizen- and so do I.

Oh- guess what- laws change. A person born outside the United States to an American mother didn't always get U.S. citizenship.

I think Cruz would make a lousy President- but that is up to the voters to decide- he is eligible

 

[Syriusly]

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

All this does is expose you Republicans for the pathetic hypocrites you are.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.

Isn't that the birther argument? What was their problem if Obama's mamas was an American? Seriously, this thread should be called birther hypocracy

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

Yes, and he's been an awful president. Cruz would be 10,000% better.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.
Isn't that the birther argument?


The birther argument was that if he was born in Kenya, or Canada for that matter, his mother didn't meet the other requirements needed to make him a citizen at birth.

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.

I just can't believe after all that brother bullshit you would consider nominating an anchor baby like Cruz.

What were those other requirements his mom didn't meet? I think you are just full of shit. All I ever heard was Obama want born in America. Then we find out Cruz and maybe even rubio wasn't either

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.


That's your problem. The requirement isn't based on what you think something sounds like.
You would have to research the law at the time Obama was born.

Oh so the law was different that year. Go fuck yourself dipshit. Obama was born in America to an American mom. That was enough to get you guys whispering about his eligibility. This Cruz things a pip.

If that's the case, he's eligible. If he was born in Kenya, then his American mom isn't the only issue.
Just as Cruz's American mom is not the only issue.

But Obama wasn't born in Kenya any more than Cruz was born in Cuba to two Cuban parents.

Don't indulge the speculative Birther idiots.

 

[sealybobo]

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

Yes, and he's been an awful president. Cruz would be 10,000% better.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.
Isn't that the birther argument?


The birther argument was that if he was born in Kenya, or Canada for that matter, his mother didn't meet the other requirements needed to make him a citizen at birth.

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.

I just can't believe after all that brother bullshit you would consider nominating an anchor baby like Cruz.

What were those other requirements his mom didn't meet? I think you are just full of shit. All I ever heard was Obama want born in America. Then we find out Cruz and maybe even rubio wasn't either

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.


That's your problem. The requirement isn't based on what you think something sounds like.
You would have to research the law at the time Obama was born.

Oh so the law was different that year. Go fuck yourself dipshit. Obama was born in America to an American mom. That was enough to get you guys whispering about his eligibility. This Cruz things a pip.

If that's the case, he's eligible. If he was born in Kenya, then his American mom isn't the only issue.
Just as Cruz's American mom is not the only issue.

But Obama wasn't born in Kenya any more than Cruz was born in Cuba to two Cuban parents.

Don't indulge the speculative Birther idiots.

It's OK now if he was born in Kenya because that was the law when Cruz was born but that wasn't the law when Obama was born so luckily he was born in Hawaii. Got it

 

[sealybobo]

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

All this does is expose you Republicans for the pathetic hypocrites you are.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.

Isn't that the birther argument? What was their problem if Obama's mamas was an American? Seriously, this thread should be called birther hypocracy

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

Yes, and he's been an awful president. Cruz would be 10,000% better.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.
Isn't that the birther argument?


The birther argument was that if he was born in Kenya, or Canada for that matter, his mother didn't meet the other requirements needed to make him a citizen at birth.

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.

I just can't believe after all that brother bullshit you would consider nominating an anchor baby like Cruz.

What were those other requirements his mom didn't meet? I think you are just full of shit. All I ever heard was Obama want born in America. Then we find out Cruz and maybe even rubio wasn't either

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.


That's your problem. The requirement isn't based on what you think something sounds like.
You would have to research the law at the time Obama was born.

Oh so the law was different that year. Go fuck yourself dipshit. Obama was born in America to an American mom. That was enough to get you guys whispering about his eligibility. This Cruz things a pip.

Oh so the law was different that year.

I realize you're not very bright, but yes, laws change. Durr.

Obama was born in America to an American mom.

If that's the case, he's eligible. If he was born in Kenya, then his American mom isn't the only issue.
Just as Cruz's American mom is not the only issue.

So Cruz isn't eligible because his dad was Cuban and he has a Canadian birth certificate? The only thing linking him to America is his mother Lucy.

Is Ted Cruz little Ricky?

 

[Syriusly]

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.

I just can't believe after all that brother bullshit you would consider nominating an anchor baby like Cruz.

What were those other requirements his mom didn't meet? I think you are just full of shit. All I ever heard was Obama want born in America. Then we find out Cruz and maybe even rubio wasn't either

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.


That's your problem. The requirement isn't based on what you think something sounds like.
You would have to research the law at the time Obama was born.

Oh so the law was different that year. Go fuck yourself dipshit. Obama was born in America to an American mom. That was enough to get you guys whispering about his eligibility. This Cruz things a pip.

If that's the case, he's eligible. If he was born in Kenya, then his American mom isn't the only issue.
Just as Cruz's American mom is not the only issue.

But Obama wasn't born in Kenya any more than Cruz was born in Cuba to two Cuban parents.

Don't indulge the speculative Birther idiots.

It's OK now if he was born in Kenya because that was the law when Cruz was born but that wasn't the law when Obama was born so luckily he was born in Hawaii. Got it

Hardly luck- his mother lived in Hawaii.

President Obama was born in Kenya- silly speculation about what would have happened if he was born in Kenya or on Mars is irrelevant.

Cruz meanwhile is eligible, because his mother was an American citizen, and he was therefore born a U.S. citizen.

 

[Syriusly]

Obama was born in America. One of his parents were American.

Yes, and he's been an awful president. Cruz would be 10,000% better.

No way you'd be comfortable or OK with it if Obama was born in Kenya, even if mom was American.
Isn't that the birther argument?


The birther argument was that if he was born in Kenya, or Canada for that matter, his mother didn't meet the other requirements needed to make him a citizen at birth.

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.

I just can't believe after all that brother bullshit you would consider nominating an anchor baby like Cruz.

What were those other requirements his mom didn't meet? I think you are just full of shit. All I ever heard was Obama want born in America. Then we find out Cruz and maybe even rubio wasn't either

What are those other requirements? Sounds to me as long as moms an American it doesn't matter where you are born or what your father is.


That's your problem. The requirement isn't based on what you think something sounds like.
You would have to research the law at the time Obama was born.

Oh so the law was different that year. Go fuck yourself dipshit. Obama was born in America to an American mom. That was enough to get you guys whispering about his eligibility. This Cruz things a pip.

Oh so the law was different that year.

I realize you're not very bright, but yes, laws change. Durr.

Obama was born in America to an American mom.

If that's the case, he's eligible. If he was born in Kenya, then his American mom isn't the only issue.
Just as Cruz's American mom is not the only issue.

So Cruz isn't eligible because his dad was Cuban and he has a Canadian birth certificate? The only thing linking him to America is his mother Lucy.

Is Ted Cruz little Ricky?

What links Cruz to America?
His mother's American citizenship
his own American citizenship
Having lived in the United States for all but what 2 years of his life?

I think Cruz would be a terrible President- but he is eligible.

 

[Searcher44]

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

So a guy who wouldn't sign the constitution vs. the guy that *wrote* it? Not a difficult choice on who would know what they were talking about.

Ask yourself, why did the Founders use the exact term 'natural-born citizen'? It seems rather specific. It wasn't Vattel. It wasn't Law of Nations. Random chance seems highly unlikely.

Easy: 'natural-born' was a specific legal term in British Common Law. With a specific meaning: those born in the allegiance to your nation. Centered exclusively on place of birth. Not parentage.

You're trying awfully hard here to come up with an alternative explanation for something that isn't particularly complicated. And the evidence is all on one side of this issue.

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen".

I direct you again to Madison, in the very conversation we drew the 'place of birth' quote that you dismissed as 'too far' from the discussion. Which again bears fruit in this conversation. Allegiance follows place of birth. You have a 'right of birth' which acknowledges your allegiance follows the community you were born into. This was the assumption the founders were working on, in fact the foundation of their transition from British Subjects to American Citizens:

What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

This is why the founders put such an emphasis on allegiance following *location*. As it was their legal and philosophical basis for their allegiance to the new United States rather than their former British Empire. That the new Americans had allegiance to where they were born first. And why adults who wished to become US citizens and weren't born here had to jump through so many hoops. Because they didn't carry with this this first, fundamental allegiance of 'right of birth' being born into the community to which they would have natural allegiance.

Bingham is irrelevant to any originalist understanding of the meaning of the term. As he's nearly a century too late, with his comments coming in 1866. Not 1766. Bingham wasn't an itch in his grandpappy's pants when Madison and the Founders wrote the constitution.

I've replied to this post already so this is basically a P.S. I'm slightly confused, you seem to be arguing that Ted Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen". Yet your posts are arguing that place, (or jus soli), is the only factor we have to take into account to determine who has that citizenship status. For instance you say

"Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other criteria" You include many lines of evidence to support this claim in your posts. All this energy expended to try to prove a person has to be born on U.S soil to be a "natural born citizen" while everybody acknowledges that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. So how do you get from here to there? You tried to use the 1790 Naturalization Act but that led nowhere because the 1790 Act was reversed by the 1795 Act. And even if it hadn't been there would be strong argument that a Congressional statute could not override a Constitutional Provision unless it was an amendment. That's a moot point now any way. So do you have a plan "B"? Plan "A" was a pretty weak attempt to neuter a clause which the framers thought important enough to use only once in an attempt to erect an exclusionary barrier to persons who may have through some factor of birth the potential of having or developing loyalty to a foreign power. "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" As John Jay put it.

Its not in question that the founder's understanding of 'natural born' at the time of the ratification of the constitution was predicated exclusively on place of birth. As Madison argued, the community you were born into and had allegiance to by 'right of birth'. Everyone from the Supreme Court to the State department recognizes that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution. With the Supreme Court recognizing that those born outside the US to US parents and granted citizenship are naturalized.

The only relevant question related to Cruz's citizenship was the one I raised at the end of my post:

Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

Did you even read my post? It's so simple to just go to Wiki and brush up on the facts. As I told you the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the 1790 Act. One of the major changes....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.....The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.

And what relevance does that have with the fundamental issue of whether the founders intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress?

As you're arguing that that for the second time, natural born status was within the realm of congress to extend or deny. The first time being the Naturalization Act of 1790, when they *did* extend natural born citizenship. As elegant a demonstration that the founders intended natural born citizenship to be within the realm of Congress to grant. As the First Congress IS the Founders.

You've insisted its a 'mistake'. But your assessment doesn't magically transform history, change the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act, nor eliminate the Founders establishing that natural born citizenship is well within the authority of Congress to extend. That all still happened.

As far as I can see you're left with what is essentially Madison's opinion, as I said yes he is important but his opinion is just that, an opinion.

We're having two different discussions. The first is on the founder's conception of natural born citizenship at the time of the ratification of the Constitutoin. And for that I've cited Madison's opinion, Wong Kim Ark, British Common Law, and the very concept of cause preceding effect in dismantling your claims regarding Vattel and the Law of Nations. And you've essentially abandoned your every claim on that front, I can only assume we now agree.

The second discussion is if the founders intended the intended natural born citizenship to be embodied exclusively by the constitution or if it could be something extended by congress. In that I haven't cited Madison as he has nothing to say on the topic.

So I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. If you're referring to our first discussion, I've obviously cited far, far more than 'Madison's opinion'. Making your claim inaccurate. And if you're referring to the second discussion, I haven't cited Madison's opinion as evidence. Making your claims inaccurate.

Pick one.

And you brought up the Wong Kim Ark case and now seem to have conveniently forgot all about it.

The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Justice Gray explained in that case:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

And as I tried to explain British common law involving "natural born subjects"
(not citizens, subjects) is not transferable without interpretation to the citizens of the new republic that was The United States of America. There is a large difference between a citizen of a Republic and the "subject" of a Monarch.

That's what you've claimed. But the quote of Wong Kim Ark you just offered simply didn't say that. Or even mention 'subjects'. And in terms of the application of the standards of British common law with the founders in their understanding of the term 'natural born citizen', its a difference with no significant distinction. As 'natural-born' subject and 'natural-born' citizen are effectively interchangeable in a discussion of the meaning of 'natural-born'.

As Madison's comments make ludicrously clear.

If it goes to SCOTUS they may side with you. If they do it will be interesting to read the opinion.

I've not only read the opinion, I've actually cited that exact passage. In this thread, I believe. As far as the founders original conception of natural born, its obvious that citizens born outside the US weren't included. Which I've stipulated......perhaps 4 times. That's actually my argument, one that I've cited Wong Kim Ark for, British Common Law for, James Madison for, what I've dismantled your claims regarding Vattel over.

The founders based natural born status on PLACE of birth. Not parentage. I don't know how much clearer I can be on the topic.

However, we're also discussing if the founders intended the natural born citizenship to be embodied in the constitution alone. Or if its something that can be extended by Congress. With the latter case obviously involving a conception of natural born citizenship AFTER the ratification of the constitution and beyond their understanding of the meaning of the term.

And as the 1790 Naturalization Act, passed in the first session of congress, signed by George Washington himself demonstrates, yes, that's what they intended.

Wong Kim Ark doesn't address this topic specifically. Given the current state of the USC on the topic, I think that the Supreme Court today would find 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' to be explicitly analogous. But this is thoroughly debatable. Our first discussion on the founders original meaning of 'natural born' and where they derived the term.....much less so.

Okay, keep citing that 1790 Act that was repealed 5 yrs. later and keep treading that Madison mill.

You're still not reading a thing you're responding to. Madison has nothing to say on Cruz's citizenship. Nor have I cited Madison on why Cruz is a likely a natural born citizen.

We're having two different discussions:

Conversation 1) the meaning of natural born at the time the constitutions was passed.
'
Conversation 2) And why Cruz is likely a natural born citizen under current US law.

You're mixing them together. And you're obviously wrong.

I'll start with Conversation 2) I'll admit that the overall ignorance of the American people on their own Constitution will allow them to be convinced of the Truth of any determination of his Citizenship status that the Establishment wants them to believe. However if by some miracle some subversive Legal Genius manages to get it to it's proper destination - SCOTUS - all bets are off.
What you call Conversation 1) is solved between us,
"the meaning of natural born at the time the constitutions was passed" was exactly the same today as it was when the Constitution was passed, unless it has been modified through the Amendment process, which it hasn't. Neither of us has the scholastic resources to derive an absolute meaning to this qualifier. You try your best to equate it's meaning and punt to British Common law even though Blackstone himself had his own "exclusionary" principle overriding membership in the Privy Council, which would have far less import than an American President being "insinuated" into such a singularly powerful Post:

"As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council"

And your beloved Madison was wary of Common Law as a strong enough bastion to protect the new rights of the new Republic.

James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
Jan. 1800Writings 6:385--401

"To these observations one fact will be added, which demonstrates that the common law cannot be admitted as the universal expositor of American terms, which may be the same with those contained in that law. The freedom of conscience and of religion are found in the same instruments which assert the freedom of the press. It will never be admitted that the meaning of the former, in the common law of England, is to limit their meaning in the United States."

And in another letter to Washington

'What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from Great Britain. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.” -
- Letter to Geo Washington October 18, 1787

One more comment on George Mason's objections to British Born Subject as applicatory, you snidely try to dispose of him as ".....a guy who wouldn't sign the constitution vs. the guy that *wrote* it? Not a difficult choice on who would know what they were talking about." I'm sure you're aware one of his objections to signing it as presented was the lack of a "Bill of Rights" and enough of the States refused to sign it until that "Bill of Rights" was included. Luckily for future generations as otherwise the Constitution would have remained the undemocratic document the Planter Class and the Banker Class And the Landowning class had attempted to frame so as to reserve power unto themselves and keep the the much maligned masses in thrall.

 

[Skylar]

I'll start with Conversation 2) I'll admit that the overall ignorance of the American people on their own Constitution will allow them to be convinced of the Truth of any determination of his Citizenship status that the Establishment wants them to believe. However if by some miracle some subversive Legal Genius manages to get it to it's proper destination - SCOTUS - all bets are off.
What you call Conversation 1) is solved between us,
"the meaning of natural born at the time the constitutions was passed" was exactly the same today as it was when the Constitution was passed, unless it has been modified through the Amendment process, which it hasn't.

And that's where we disagree. I argue that it was the intention of the founders to put all issues of citizenship under the purview of congressional statute. Including natural born citizenship.

My evidence is the very first session of the very first congress, the founders themselves, doing exactly that. And extending natural born citizenship by congressional statute in 1790.

Demonstrating that Congress absolutely has that authority. All without any amendment.

With that authority in mind, I would argue that a reading of current law on the topic would find no constitutionally significant difference between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

Why? Why were you looking forward to his candidacy? Be specific.

 

[Silhouette]

I argue that it was the intention of the founders to put all issues of citizenship under the purview of congressional statute. Including natural born citizenship.

My evidence is the very first session of the very first congress, the founders themselves, doing exactly that. And extending natural born citizenship by congressional statute in 1790. Demonstrating that Congress absolutely has that authority. All without any amendment....With that authority in mind, I would argue that a reading of current law on the topic would find no constitutionally significant difference between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen'.

So are you saying that Ted Cruz's Canadian birth certificate kills his run for president or doesn't matter?

 

[Skylar]

I argue that it was the intention of the founders to put all issues of citizenship under the purview of congressional statute. Including natural born citizenship.

My evidence is the very first session of the very first congress, the founders themselves, doing exactly that. And extending natural born citizenship by congressional statute in 1790. Demonstrating that Congress absolutely has that authority. All without any amendment....With that authority in mind, I would argue that a reading of current law on the topic would find no constitutionally significant difference between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen'.

So are you saying that Ted Cruz's Canadian birth certificate kills his run for president or doesn't matter?

Doesn't matter.

 

[aris2chat]

I argue that it was the intention of the founders to put all issues of citizenship under the purview of congressional statute. Including natural born citizenship.

My evidence is the very first session of the very first congress, the founders themselves, doing exactly that. And extending natural born citizenship by congressional statute in 1790. Demonstrating that Congress absolutely has that authority. All without any amendment....With that authority in mind, I would argue that a reading of current law on the topic would find no constitutionally significant difference between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen'.

So are you saying that Ted Cruz's Canadian birth certificate kills his run for president or doesn't matter?

it was not a US military base hospital or embassy. Not US land, so that is why there is a question. Cruz' father was not a US citizen till 2005. Cruz did not give up his canadian citizenship till a few months ago.
There is reason to question.