It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Game Of Thrones/Ted Cruz & Natural Born Citizenship

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
so..does Cruz now have dual citizenship?
Canada and U.S.?




posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: autopat51

He renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014. So, he's a US citizen, only.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Flatfish

I disagree with you on this. I think the founders wanted pretty open borders because they needed people to colonize. Aside from the obvious biases against "uncivilized peoples" I don't think they cared if they were English, French, Spaniard, Dutch, Italian, German or Norwegian. As long as they were going to settle, build and fight with loyalty to the idea of America it was okay. This continued through Constitution days and after. I think this is why the Constitution is vague on the matter and it's never been clarified since. I think it's better to leave it vague, personally... even though I despise Cruz.

It's fun (meanie Kali, I know) to tease Obama birthers that now support Cruz or don't care that he's running but that's about it for me. I have no problem with his eligibility because of where he was born.

Personally I think him being a Theocrat is what makes him ineligible.


I totally agree with you regarding the founding fathers and their feelings regarding immigration, but I don't see what that has to do with them requiring that a potential POTUS be born here.

I do NOT believe they intended to demand that both parents also be citizens so wanting new immigrants to come to America wouldn't negate their desire to protect the presidency from undue outside influence and/or loyalties.

This is exactly why Ted Cruz recently relinquished his Canadian citizenship. He knew this would come up and he's trying to give the impression that he has no loyalties to any country other than America.

I can live with it either way it gets decided, but until the SCOTUS rules, my opinion stays the same.....Cruz is ineligible to run.
edit on 16-1-2016 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: autopat51

He renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014. So, he's a US citizen, only.


And so are millions of others who live here, but that still doesn't make him a "natural born" citizen.

As far as I'm concerned, we should also have laws mandating that anyone with dual citizenship cannot run for political office at the federal level without relinquishing all foreign citizenship first.

IMO, we have far too many representatives in congress who currently hold dual citizenship with Israel and that's half our problem when it comes to Middle East turmoil. Israel may as well have elected those officials to represent their interest in our congress.

Just the same, your comment only reinforces my belief that natural born means born on U.S. territory.

I don't know of any current law mandating that Cruz give up his Canadian citizenship, so if he hadn't done it, would you vote for a POTUS with citizenship in another country?

I know I wouldn't.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Like I said, pretty much ignored by the media before the nomination and election of Obama.

Now? We must sort this issue out.



Marginalized, ignored, but now? A valid point to be looked at. Please...

I am NOT a Cruz supporter, per se, a non-issue for both in my mind if for no other reason than fait accompli in Obama's case.

Move on...
edit on 16-1-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a non-issue for both in my mind if for no other reason than fait accompli in Obama's case.


In Obama's case he was born in the USA, so there was never any doubt that he was a natural born US citizen. Which is why birthers lost every single court case they attempted, over 200 of them.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Flatfish

Like I said, pretty much ignored by the media before the nomination and election of Obama.

Now? We must sort this issue out.



Marginalized, ignored, but now? A valid point to be looked at. Please...

I am NOT a Cruz supporter, per se, a non-issue for both in my mind if for no other reason than fait accompli in Obama's case.

Move on...


The entire birther issue was over the physical location where Obama's birth took place.

That's why they spent so much time & effort trying to produce fake Kenyan birth certificates in a futile attempt to substantiate their assertions.

What didn't seem to matter to those alleging Obama was born in Kenya was his mother's U.S. citizenship.

But now all of a sudden, all Ted Cruz has to say is, "my mother was a U.S. citizen" and it instantly becomes "settled law?" Hardly!

Being born outside the U.S. and running for POTUS has never been marginalized or ignored until now and as odd as it may seem, it's the very same people who made it such an issue for Obama who are trying to ignore and/or marginalize it now that the shoe is on their foot.

Hypocrisy at it's finest!



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish



Being born outside the U.S. and running for POTUS has never been marginalized or ignored until now and as odd as it may seem, it's the very same people who made it such an issue for Obama who are trying to ignore and/or marginalize it now that the shoe is on their foot.

Actually, Trump was all over the Obama silliness as well.
www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Flatfish



Being born outside the U.S. and running for POTUS has never been marginalized or ignored until now and as odd as it may seem, it's the very same people who made it such an issue for Obama who are trying to ignore and/or marginalize it now that the shoe is on their foot.

Actually, Trump was all over the Obama silliness as well.
www.huffingtonpost.com...


Yeah, someone authored a thread about it and in my post there, I gave Trump credit for at least being consistent.

But by and large, the Obama birther movement has been quiet as a mouse this time around.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: FlatfishI would make this observation, about Ted Cruz. He was the AG of Texas a few years back. I suspect his status as a natural born US citizen was looked at back then when he had to run for office. I am pretty sure that Texans would not hire a Canadian citizen to be their AG. All this hula balu is political theater.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
And so are millions of others who live here, but that still doesn't make him a "natural born" citizen.


That's true. I was just answering the guy's question.



I don't know of any current law mandating that Cruz give up his Canadian citizenship, so if he hadn't done it, would you vote for a POTUS with citizenship in another country?


I wouldn't vote for Cruz under ANY circumstances. But I'm not sure someone's dual citizenship would have any effect on my vote. James Buchanan held dual citizenship his whole life.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

I dunno bro...

All i know is, if this WAS a game of thrones universe, then Arnold Schwarzenegger would be King.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
a reply to: FlatfishI would make this observation, about Ted Cruz. He was the AG of Texas a few years back. I suspect his status as a natural born US citizen was looked at back then when he had to run for office. I am pretty sure that Texans would not hire a Canadian citizen to be their AG. All this hula balu is political theater.



As far as I know, there's absolutely nothing about his Canadian citizenship that would or should affect his eligibility to run for, or be elected to, the position of State Attorney General.

That being said, I was born here in Texas and I've been living here continuously for over 59 yrs and if there's one thing I can confidently say regarding our politics, it's this;

"Texans vote for and elect some of the most unqualified nut-jobs to fill political offices at every level imaginable, including federal."

Hell, our previous governor was trying to run for POTUS and he's currently under criminal indictment for abuse of power.

As a matter of fact, we're probably our nation's largest donor of right-wing nut-jobs currently occupying our congressional chambers, including Ted Cruz.

edit on 17-1-2016 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords


Hillary's campaign did put it out there first.


This is a terribly false claim put forward by birthers. There's no evidence that the Hillary campaign started the birther conspiracy.

Rightwingers had been pimping the birther issue well before the Hilldogs decided to pick it up. The earliest post claiming and theorizing that Obama was born outside of US soil is dated March 1st 2008, it was a post on the website Freerepublic.com, hardly a pro-Hillary Clinton forum especially considering the fact that Hillary was still verymuch a player in the primaries at that time and a threat to the Republicans. Here's the post:


03/01/2008 "Also that Obama’s mother gave birth to him overseas and then immediately flew into Hawaii and registered his birth as having taken place in Hawaii."

www.freerepublic.com...

Another one from the Free Republic website dated March 2nd 2008:

03/02/2008 "I have a question. Supposedly, there was talk of Obama being a dual citizen of Kenya and U.S."

www.freerepublic.com...

These are the earliest birther posts on the net, all sourced by the the very right wing, very anti-Hillary Free Republic website. Birtherism started to spread and flow from that source. Sure, you could argue that many Hillary supporters picked it up to use against Obama, but conservatives own it.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

I don't understand this is so hard for people to understand.

Natural born citizen = somebody born an american citizen. They do not require to go through a naturalization process to become a US citizen.

Naturalized citizen = somebody who had to be naturalized a US citizen.

Did Cruz have to be a naturalized? No, because he got his citizenship by virtue of his american born mother.

Did Obama have to be naturalized? No, because he was 1) born in hawaii (which has been verified by officials when people choose to like it or not) and 2) his mother is a citizen.

Same for Jindal and Rubio.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Flatfish

I don't understand this is so hard for people to understand.

Natural born citizen = somebody born an american citizen. They do not require to go through a naturalization process to become a US citizen.

Naturalized citizen = somebody who had to be naturalized a US citizen.

Did Cruz have to be a naturalized? No, because he got his citizenship by virtue of his american born mother.

Did Obama have to be naturalized? No, because he was 1) born in hawaii (which has been verified by officials when people choose to like it or not) and 2) his mother is a citizen.

Same for Jindal and Rubio.


If only it were that simple.

I think what you're having a hard time understanding is the fact that your interpretation is just an opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

While I absolutely reject your interpretation, again that's just my opinion which is no more binding than your own.

The good news is that our opinions will have very little to do with respect to influencing this decision and rightly so.

Eventually, the SCOTUS will have to decide this issue and when they do, they will rely on past case precedent and/or reference to Common Law.

IMO and based on the the wording in several previous SCOTUS rulings that I've heard several constitutional scholars refer to, past case precedent will not support your interpretation.

According to these scholars, there was a SCOTUS ruling in another case back in the early 1900s where the court stated, (in their own words and as part of the official ruling) that there are two ways to become "naturalized."

The first way was to be "naturalized" at birth by virtue of one or more parents being U.S. citizens.

The second way was to be "naturalized" through the judicial process intended for people seeking citizenship who were born outside the U.S., to non-U.S. citizens.

And....if they take it a step further and look to Common Law for a determination, there's even less that would support your version.

According to Common Law, they ALL stated that the term "natural born" refers to being governed by the laws of nature, or "of the land." In that, if someone is born "of the land," they are by "nature," a citizen of that land.

The birther movement never raised a question regarding Obama's mother's citizenship, it was all about the physical location of his actual birth.

Not only do I totally disagree with your interpretation of the the term, I'm also a staunch believer in; "What's good for the goose, is also good for the gander."




edit on 21-1-2016 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
that there are two ways to become "naturalized."

The first way was to be "naturalized" at birth by virtue of one or more parents being U.S. citizens.


That applies to Cruz... also being born in the USA applies to Obama.


The second way was to be "naturalized" through the judicial process intended for people seeking citizenship who were born outside the U.S., to non-U.S. citizens.


That never happened to either Obama or Cruz.


The birther movement never raised a question regarding Obama's mother's citizenship, it was all about the physical location of his actual birth.


As that was in Hawaii what were birthers on about?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Flatfish
that there are two ways to become "naturalized."

The first way was to be "naturalized" at birth by virtue of one or more parents being U.S. citizens.


That applies to Cruz... also being born in the USA applies to Obama.


The second way was to be "naturalized" through the judicial process intended for people seeking citizenship who were born outside the U.S., to non-U.S. citizens.


That never happened to either Obama or Cruz.


The birther movement never raised a question regarding Obama's mother's citizenship, it was all about the physical location of his actual birth.


As that was in Hawaii what were birthers on about?


The birther movement would have had a valid point if they could have proven that Obama was born on foreign soil. But they couldn't prove it because he was born in Hawaii. Hence, Obama is a "natural born" citizen eligible to hold the office of POTUS.

There is no question that Ted Cruz was indeed born on foreign soil to an American parent. Which is exactly the same scenario the birther movement was trying to prove with Obama, but in this case it's true and indisputable.

Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen, born on foreign soil and "naturalized" at birth by virtue of his American mother.

He is NOT a "natural born citizen," as stated in the eligibility requirements for POTUS.

Ted Cruz is the living, breathing, embodiment of what the birther movement was falsely trying to portray Obama of being.

Ever heard the old saying; "You can't have your cake and eat it too?"



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join