Comparing The 1790 And 1795 Naturalization Acts: Ted Cruz Has A Big Problem

[Skylar]

I doubt the framers envisioned an American married to a Cuban exile living in Canada, or an American living in Hawaii married to a .... Kenyan muslm Marxist socialist. (--: Or an American born in Panama on a permanent US military base.

I think they envisioned that IF a person born out of this country yet born to two American parents, that this child would be considered natural born.

One American parent has a child outside of the country, the kid is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

Or maybe the framers intended that a natural born citizen not be born by c section.

Hows that for natural born?

I believe McCain has 2 American citizen parents.
Obama was born in the USA to one American parent.

ted has a problem. He aint natural born.
Hell ted doesnt seem very natural about anything. He is weird.

Madison definitely picked a side on the 'parentage v. place of birth' controversy.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

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

So place is definitely covered.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Saw this:

So a guy from Arabia comes here, has a baby, takes the baby back to Arabia, it grows up, has 20 children and all 20 are US Citizens? And all their children are US Citizens?

Could it happen?

All it takes is one American parent and the child can be born anywhere and then they can become President..

That's not true though.

 

[bendog]

I doubt the framers envisioned an American married to a Cuban exile living in Canada, or an American living in Hawaii married to a .... Kenyan muslm Marxist socialist. (--: Or an American born in Panama on a permanent US military base.

I think they envisioned that IF a person born out of this country yet born to two American parents, that this child would be considered natural born.

One American parent has a child outside of the country, the kid is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

Or maybe the framers intended that a natural born citizen not be born by c section.

Hows that for natural born?

I believe McCain has 2 American citizen parents.
Obama was born in the USA to one American parent.

ted has a problem. He aint natural born.
Hell ted doesnt seem very natural about anything. He is weird.

Madison definitely picked a side on the 'parentage v. place of birth' controversy.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

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

So place is definitely covered.

I read the quote. I'm personally unconvinced that it is definitive as to what he thought. Suppose John Adams' son, Quincy, had been born while John was serving as an ambassador in one of his European postings? I assume Abigail would have accompanied him, rather than caring for home and hearth. LOL

 

[Skylar]

I doubt the framers envisioned an American married to a Cuban exile living in Canada, or an American living in Hawaii married to a .... Kenyan muslm Marxist socialist. (--: Or an American born in Panama on a permanent US military base.

I think they envisioned that IF a person born out of this country yet born to two American parents, that this child would be considered natural born.

One American parent has a child outside of the country, the kid is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

Or maybe the framers intended that a natural born citizen not be born by c section.

Hows that for natural born?

I believe McCain has 2 American citizen parents.
Obama was born in the USA to one American parent.

ted has a problem. He aint natural born.
Hell ted doesnt seem very natural about anything. He is weird.

Madison definitely picked a side on the 'parentage v. place of birth' controversy.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

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

So place is definitely covered.

I read the quote. I'm personally unconvinced that it is definitive as to what he thought. Suppose John Adams' son, Quincy, had been born while John was serving as an ambassador in one of his European postings? I assume Abigail would have accompanied him, rather than caring for home and hearth. LOL

I'm reviewing the debates of the 1790 Naturalization Act now. And there seems to be an understanding that those born outside the US would not be citizens. So they created the law to change that.

When i find the definative quote, I'll get you links. Unfortunately the original debates are hard to search. As they are graphic scans rather than accurate searchable text. So I have to, you know, actually read each page.

Its barbaric.

 

[bendog]

I doubt the framers envisioned an American married to a Cuban exile living in Canada, or an American living in Hawaii married to a .... Kenyan muslm Marxist socialist. (--: Or an American born in Panama on a permanent US military base.

I think they envisioned that IF a person born out of this country yet born to two American parents, that this child would be considered natural born.

One American parent has a child outside of the country, the kid is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

Or maybe the framers intended that a natural born citizen not be born by c section.

Hows that for natural born?

I believe McCain has 2 American citizen parents.
Obama was born in the USA to one American parent.

ted has a problem. He aint natural born.
Hell ted doesnt seem very natural about anything. He is weird.

Madison definitely picked a side on the 'parentage v. place of birth' controversy.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

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

So place is definitely covered.

I read the quote. I'm personally unconvinced that it is definitive as to what he thought. Suppose John Adams' son, Quincy, had been born while John was serving as an ambassador in one of his European postings? I assume Abigail would have accompanied him, rather than caring for home and hearth. LOL

I'm reviewing the debates of the 1790 Naturalization Act now. And there seems to be an understanding that those born outside the US would not be citizens. So they created the law to change that.

When i find the definative quote, I'll get you links. Unfortunately the original debates are hard to search. As they are graphic scans rather than accurate searchable text. So I have to, you know, actually read each page.

Its barbaric.

True. But, imo, it's largely irrelevant because the issue is one of statutory and not constitutional law. The statue provided Cruz can run. Nevertheless, I'm amused at all of those who dislike the Big Quack still tossing Cruz under the bus because they absolutely loathe him. Harry Reid and McCain probably had a tipple and smoked cigars.

 

[Skylar]

I doubt the framers envisioned an American married to a Cuban exile living in Canada, or an American living in Hawaii married to a .... Kenyan muslm Marxist socialist. (--: Or an American born in Panama on a permanent US military base.

I think they envisioned that IF a person born out of this country yet born to two American parents, that this child would be considered natural born.

One American parent has a child outside of the country, the kid is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

Or maybe the framers intended that a natural born citizen not be born by c section.

Hows that for natural born?

I believe McCain has 2 American citizen parents.
Obama was born in the USA to one American parent.

ted has a problem. He aint natural born.
Hell ted doesnt seem very natural about anything. He is weird.

Madison definitely picked a side on the 'parentage v. place of birth' controversy.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

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

So place is definitely covered.

I read the quote. I'm personally unconvinced that it is definitive as to what he thought. Suppose John Adams' son, Quincy, had been born while John was serving as an ambassador in one of his European postings? I assume Abigail would have accompanied him, rather than caring for home and hearth. LOL

I'm reviewing the debates of the 1790 Naturalization Act now. And there seems to be an understanding that those born outside the US would not be citizens. So they created the law to change that.

When i find the definative quote, I'll get you links. Unfortunately the original debates are hard to search. As they are graphic scans rather than accurate searchable text. So I have to, you know, actually read each page.

Its barbaric.

True. But, imo, it's largely irrelevant because the issue is one of statutory and not constitutional law. The statue provided Cruz can run. Nevertheless, I'm amused at all of those who dislike the Big Quack still tossing Cruz under the bus because they absolutely loathe him. Harry Reid and McCain probably had a tipple and smoked cigars.

Cruz is a pretty awful person. Almost everyone that has worked with him hates his guts. Apparently to know him is to loathe him.

Plus, he's a dick. When his state fucked up and accidentally applied repeat offender statutes to a guy who stole a calculator from a Walmart and was sentenced for 16 years, Cruz insisted on fighting his attempts to get the correct sentencing applied. He pushed it all the way to the Supreme Court.....where the judges literally asked him 'can't you guys admit you made a mistake'?

With Cruz, nope.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just found this gem from James Madison:

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

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

Establishing that in 1789 at least, location of birth was king in determining allegiance and therefore, citizenship.

Actually, it establishes that, even in 1789, the United States recognized birth citizenship not based on location.

Just because, generally, most natural-born citizens achieve that status by place of birth, doesn't mean that it's the only way it's achieved, or that that has ever been the case.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Saw this:

So a guy from Arabia comes here, has a baby, takes the baby back to Arabia, it grows up, has 20 children and all 20 are US Citizens? And all their children are US Citizens?

Could it happen?

Not only are they citizens, they are natural born and eligible to be POtUS.

According to some on here anyway.

All it takes is one American parent and the child can be born anywhere and then they can become President.

Dont believe the framers intended it that way. But some on here believe it is that way.

Lots of people are wrong about shit on here though.

Glad to know your misunderstanding of the subject is every bit as complete as I thought it was.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I doubt the framers envisioned an American married to a Cuban exile living in Canada, or an American living in Hawaii married to a .... Kenyan muslm Marxist socialist. (--: Or an American born in Panama on a permanent US military base.

The Framers didn't envision a lot of specifics of the future. Doesn't mean they didn't grasp the general principles, and doesn't mean the law today isn't still what it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes being a natural born citizen does.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

But not a Citizen. You are conflating the two.

Nope. A natural-born citizen is one who was born into citizenship, rather than naturalized. Ted Cruz has been a US citizen since his birth. No naturalization required.

Article 2 Section 1 specifically calls for a natural born Citizen, not a Citizen. Ted was naturalized by US Code 1401 via the 14th Amendment. No where is the term natural born Citizen located in the 14th Amendment. The father of the 14th Amendment, Representative John Bingham, defined a natural born Citizen as this:

I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.”
From The Congressional Globe, 1866, pg 1291, second column
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...


Cruz's father Rafael owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. Ted is a Citizen, not a natural-born Citizen.

Ted was not "naturalized". He was a citizen at birth. Whether or not a nation changes how it determines natural-born citizens is irrelevant to that fact. You seem to imagine that the definition of natural-born citizen is some universal law, like physics, that stands above and apart the laws of men, when it is nothing BUT the laws of men and how they choose to view an individual.

I don't give a piss in a windstorm what John Bingham did or didn't think back in the 19th century. Laws change, as has this one. And to imagine that this one thing is somehow immutable by law is absurd.

I also don't give a piss in a windstorm about what Ted's father did or didn't do. It's irrelevant to Ted himself. If his father ever runs for President, then we will visit the question of HIS loyalties at that time.

US Code 1401 does not "naturalize" citizens like Ted Cruz. It recognizes them as citizens at birth, aka natural-born citizens. I defy you to find any interpretation or application of the law that says differently. And there are plenty of examples to search through, since this question is addressed daily on behalf of the children of the millions of American citizens who live and work abroad at any given moment.

Please cite where the wording 'natural-born Citizen' is located in the 14th Amendment.

Please cite a) where I ever said that it did, or b) where the 14th Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution, became the only laws in the nation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I doubt the framers envisioned an American married to a Cuban exile living in Canada, or an American living in Hawaii married to a .... Kenyan muslm Marxist socialist. (--: Or an American born in Panama on a permanent US military base.

I think they envisioned that IF a person born out of this country yet born to two American parents, that this child would be considered natural born.

One American parent has a child outside of the country, the kid is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

Or maybe the framers intended that a natural born citizen not be born by c section.

Hows that for natural born?

I believe McCain has 2 American citizen parents.
Obama was born in the USA to one American parent.

ted has a problem. He aint natural born.
Hell ted doesnt seem very natural about anything. He is weird.

I think they envisioned exactly what the law provides: that the children of US citizens are US citizens.

More to the point, the people who wrote the law in effect RIGHT NOW, defining the term "natural-born citizen" as the United States chooses to have it, envisioned exactly what they wrote.

There is no point at which ANY lawmaker said, "Let's let the qualifications for the Presidency be determined by drooling dumbfucks who can't be bothered to read."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I doubt the framers envisioned an American married to a Cuban exile living in Canada, or an American living in Hawaii married to a .... Kenyan muslm Marxist socialist. (--: Or an American born in Panama on a permanent US military base.

I think they envisioned that IF a person born out of this country yet born to two American parents, that this child would be considered natural born.

One American parent has a child outside of the country, the kid is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

Or maybe the framers intended that a natural born citizen not be born by c section.

Hows that for natural born?

I believe McCain has 2 American citizen parents.
Obama was born in the USA to one American parent.

ted has a problem. He aint natural born.
Hell ted doesnt seem very natural about anything. He is weird.

Madison definitely picked a side on the 'parentage v. place of birth' controversy.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

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

So place is definitely covered.

I read the quote. I'm personally unconvinced that it is definitive as to what he thought. Suppose John Adams' son, Quincy, had been born while John was serving as an ambassador in one of his European postings? I assume Abigail would have accompanied him, rather than caring for home and hearth. LOL

I'm reviewing the debates of the 1790 Naturalization Act now. And there seems to be an understanding that those born outside the US would not be citizens. So they created the law to change that.

When i find the definative quote, I'll get you links. Unfortunately the original debates are hard to search. As they are graphic scans rather than accurate searchable text. So I have to, you know, actually read each page.

Its barbaric.

I don't frankly give a damn what the law was in 1790. This isn't 1790. The United States has procedures by which its laws can be adjusted, modified, and changed to reflect current circumstances, which was done in the case of birth citizenship to reflect the fact that, as I've said several times, millions of American citizens travel and live outside the United States at any given moment for various reasons, and our laws do not reflect any intent to deny their children citizenship, or to deny our nation of its lawful citizens.

 

[Skylar]

Just found this gem from James Madison:

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

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

Establishing that in 1789 at least, location of birth was king in determining allegiance and therefore, citizenship.

Actually, it establishes that, even in 1789, the United States recognized birth citizenship not based on location.

Just because, generally, most natural-born citizens achieve that status by place of birth, doesn't mean that it's the only way it's achieved, or that that has ever been the case.

I never said it was the only way. I said that in the US, place is the most certain criterion. With Madison placing it above parentage when determining allegiance and therefore citizenship.

I'm revewing the debates on the 1790 Naturalization Act. As it seems that the founders didn't think that someone born outside the US was a citizen AT ALL. Regardless of parents. And the Naturalization Act written to fix that. Though I'm still reviewing the data. I'll give you links to the debates if you'd like to join me.

 

[Skylar]

I doubt the framers envisioned an American married to a Cuban exile living in Canada, or an American living in Hawaii married to a .... Kenyan muslm Marxist socialist. (--: Or an American born in Panama on a permanent US military base.

I think they envisioned that IF a person born out of this country yet born to two American parents, that this child would be considered natural born.

One American parent has a child outside of the country, the kid is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

Or maybe the framers intended that a natural born citizen not be born by c section.

Hows that for natural born?

I believe McCain has 2 American citizen parents.
Obama was born in the USA to one American parent.

ted has a problem. He aint natural born.
Hell ted doesnt seem very natural about anything. He is weird.

Madison definitely picked a side on the 'parentage v. place of birth' controversy.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

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

So place is definitely covered.

I read the quote. I'm personally unconvinced that it is definitive as to what he thought. Suppose John Adams' son, Quincy, had been born while John was serving as an ambassador in one of his European postings? I assume Abigail would have accompanied him, rather than caring for home and hearth. LOL

I'm reviewing the debates of the 1790 Naturalization Act now. And there seems to be an understanding that those born outside the US would not be citizens. So they created the law to change that.

When i find the definative quote, I'll get you links. Unfortunately the original debates are hard to search. As they are graphic scans rather than accurate searchable text. So I have to, you know, actually read each page.

Its barbaric.

I don't frankly give a damn what the law was in 1790. This isn't 1790. The United States has procedures by which its laws can be adjusted, modified, and changed to reflect current circumstances, which was done in the case of birth citizenship to reflect the fact that, as I've said several times, millions of American citizens travel and live outside the United States at any given moment for various reasons, and our laws do not reflect any intent to deny their children citizenship, or to deny our nation of its lawful citizens.

It depends on if you're going with an originalist or living constitution interpretation. If you're going with an originalist interpretation, then the view of the founders on birthright citizenship is immediately germane.
And Cruz is an originalist. This would be his standard. Making it germane yet again.

If you're going with a Living Constitution argument, (as I do, at least on this issue), then the status of someone under 1790 law would be irrelevant. What would matter is law today. And currently there is nothing but 'citizen at birth' (natural born) and citizen after birth (naturalized).

There is no third option. Except Puerto Rico's legal unicorn 'Naturalized at Birth'. Which is unique in our legal history. And irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think they envisioned that IF a person born out of this country yet born to two American parents, that this child would be considered natural born.

One American parent has a child outside of the country, the kid is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

Or maybe the framers intended that a natural born citizen not be born by c section.

Hows that for natural born?

I believe McCain has 2 American citizen parents.
Obama was born in the USA to one American parent.

ted has a problem. He aint natural born.
Hell ted doesnt seem very natural about anything. He is weird.

Madison definitely picked a side on the 'parentage v. place of birth' controversy.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

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

So place is definitely covered.

I read the quote. I'm personally unconvinced that it is definitive as to what he thought. Suppose John Adams' son, Quincy, had been born while John was serving as an ambassador in one of his European postings? I assume Abigail would have accompanied him, rather than caring for home and hearth. LOL

I'm reviewing the debates of the 1790 Naturalization Act now. And there seems to be an understanding that those born outside the US would not be citizens. So they created the law to change that.

When i find the definative quote, I'll get you links. Unfortunately the original debates are hard to search. As they are graphic scans rather than accurate searchable text. So I have to, you know, actually read each page.

Its barbaric.

I don't frankly give a damn what the law was in 1790. This isn't 1790. The United States has procedures by which its laws can be adjusted, modified, and changed to reflect current circumstances, which was done in the case of birth citizenship to reflect the fact that, as I've said several times, millions of American citizens travel and live outside the United States at any given moment for various reasons, and our laws do not reflect any intent to deny their children citizenship, or to deny our nation of its lawful citizens.

It depends on if you're going with an originalist or living constitution interpretation. If you're going with an originalist interpretation, then the view of the founders on birthright citizenship is immediately germane.
And Cruz is an originalist. This would be his standard. Making it germane yet again.

If you're going with a Living Constitution argument, (as I do, at least on this issue), then the status of someone under 1790 law would be irrelevant. What would matter is law today. And currently there is nothing but 'citizen at birth' (natural born) and citizen after birth (naturalized).

There is no third option. Except Puerto Rico's legal unicorn 'Naturalized at Birth'. Which is unique in our legal history. And irrelevant to this discussion.

No, and no.

An originalist view means that all subsequent laws must not conflict with the Constitution, and that they must be passed lawfully. In addition, it requires not NEVER changing the Constitution itself, but doing so by the proper, lawful amendment procedures. It does not require us to abide by lesser statutes in force in the 18th century which have been revised in later years.

The laws which define Ted Cruz as a natural-born citizen were all duly and lawfully passed, and in no way conflict with the Constitution, which NEVER exempted the term "natural-born citizen" from Congress' power to define by statute.

On the other hand, the noxious idea of a "living Constitution" allows for the idea of changing Constitutional law simply by "interpreting" it differently, or ignoring it entirely. That sort of thing renders ALL laws null and void, since if the Constitution has no solidity in its wording, then no law does, and we live simply at the whim of whichever official happens to be "interpreting" at the moment.

So the relevant law is what is in force today, both in the Constitution (which has been amended many times since the Framers' day, as they expected and provided for it to do) and in the lesser statutes. What is not relevant are statutes from an earlier time which have been rescinded and modified.

 

[Skylar]

Madison definitely picked a side on the 'parentage v. place of birth' controversy.

So place is definitely covered.

I read the quote. I'm personally unconvinced that it is definitive as to what he thought. Suppose John Adams' son, Quincy, had been born while John was serving as an ambassador in one of his European postings? I assume Abigail would have accompanied him, rather than caring for home and hearth. LOL

I'm reviewing the debates of the 1790 Naturalization Act now. And there seems to be an understanding that those born outside the US would not be citizens. So they created the law to change that.

When i find the definative quote, I'll get you links. Unfortunately the original debates are hard to search. As they are graphic scans rather than accurate searchable text. So I have to, you know, actually read each page.

Its barbaric.

I don't frankly give a damn what the law was in 1790. This isn't 1790. The United States has procedures by which its laws can be adjusted, modified, and changed to reflect current circumstances, which was done in the case of birth citizenship to reflect the fact that, as I've said several times, millions of American citizens travel and live outside the United States at any given moment for various reasons, and our laws do not reflect any intent to deny their children citizenship, or to deny our nation of its lawful citizens.

It depends on if you're going with an originalist or living constitution interpretation. If you're going with an originalist interpretation, then the view of the founders on birthright citizenship is immediately germane.
And Cruz is an originalist. This would be his standard. Making it germane yet again.

If you're going with a Living Constitution argument, (as I do, at least on this issue), then the status of someone under 1790 law would be irrelevant. What would matter is law today. And currently there is nothing but 'citizen at birth' (natural born) and citizen after birth (naturalized).

There is no third option. Except Puerto Rico's legal unicorn 'Naturalized at Birth'. Which is unique in our legal history. And irrelevant to this discussion.

No, and no.

An originalist view means that all subsequent laws must not conflict with the Constitution, and that they must be passed lawfully.

No, originalism implies that those who make, interpret, and enforce the law ought to be guided by the meaning of the United States Constitution as it was originally written. Its also called 'jurisprudence of original intention'

With the 'original intention' being what the founders actually meant when they wrote it. This is the view the Cruz supports.

In addition, it requires not NEVER changing the Constitution itself, but doing so by the proper, lawful amendment procedures. It does not require us to abide by lesser statutes in force in the 18th century which have been revised in later years.

There is no law that explicitly confers natural born citizenship to those born to a mother out of the country. Or even mentions natural born citizenship. Nor is there any such amendment. Meaning that per the originalist interpretation, you're left with what the founders meant by 'natural born citizen'.

And as Madison and the Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrates, they clearly emphasized place of birth. As if natural born citizenship for children born outside the US to US parents was ALREADY their understanding of the term, there would be no need to include it in the 1790 Naturalization Act.

Or to use the term 'shall be considered as'.

The laws which define Ted Cruz as a natural-born citizen were all duly and lawfully passed, and in no way conflict with the Constitution, which NEVER exempted the term "natural-born citizen" from Congress' power to define by statute.

And which law defines his 'natural born citizenship'? Specifically.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In fact, it ain't so.

 

[boilermaker55]

See their you go with your bigoted hatred and you want me to worry about "The Big Guy"
Hypocrite.

Damn birthers. When it fits to ridicule and take up valuable government time and issues to prove your point about the sitting President. It was fine. Now its your "boy" , its, let it go.
Hypocrites!

The repealing of the 1790 Naturalization Act tells you all you need to know about the definition of Natural Born Citizen and the Framers' intent.

Even Geraldo gets it as he schools Hannity and Laura Ingraham.
Geraldo: Trump Is Right Ted Cruz May Not be a Natural Born Citizen





naturalization laws 1790-1795

1790 Naturalization Act:
"..And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens..."

1795 Naturalization Act:
"...the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States..."

I don't support the guy, or the country he comes from. However the question should be, does he have any conflicts of interest with another country? The answer appears to be no. He's American, always has been. So why not move on to important issues? (well I supposed the Republicans aren't really talking about important issues at all).

Yes, because all situations are exactly alike, and the only POSSIBLE difference is whether or not we "like" the man in question.

Retard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Cecilie1200]

See their you go with your bigoted hatred and you want me to worry about "The Big Guy"
Hypocrite.

Damn birthers. When it fits to ridicule and take up valuable government time and issues to prove your point about the sitting President. It was fine. Now its your "boy" , its, let it go.
Hypocrites!

The repealing of the 1790 Naturalization Act tells you all you need to know about the definition of Natural Born Citizen and the Framers' intent.

Even Geraldo gets it as he schools Hannity and Laura Ingraham.
Geraldo: Trump Is Right Ted Cruz May Not be a Natural Born Citizen





naturalization laws 1790-1795

1790 Naturalization Act:
"..And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens..."

1795 Naturalization Act:
"...the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States..."

I don't support the guy, or the country he comes from. However the question should be, does he have any conflicts of interest with another country? The answer appears to be no. He's American, always has been. So why not move on to important issues? (well I supposed the Republicans aren't really talking about important issues at all).

Yes, because all situations are exactly alike, and the only POSSIBLE difference is whether or not we "like" the man in question.

Retard.

I don't want you to worry about anything. I don't give a tin shit either way what you do.

I'm just amused by the thought of the surprise awaiting you at the end of the line.

Nothing hypocritical about me. I have never presented myself as anything other than what I am. If God has a problem with it, I feel certain He can take it up with me without resorting to speaking through an ass.