Trump plays birther card against Cruz

[Bronzeage]

You "believe"? That's not good enough. Post your long form birth certificate.

I was young at the time and I rely on second hand information.

- - - Updated - - -

As much as I am enjoying Ted Cruz being poked with the birther nonsense, it really isn't that complicated. He is a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth, even if he is born outside of the USA, if his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth (She was), and his birth date is after December 23, 1952 (it is) and his mother "had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of at least one year" (she did).

http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

Trump going "full birther" on Cruz has me wondering yet again if his purpose is really running for President or destroying the Republican party from the inside.

But, even if Obama had been born in Kenya, he would also, by the same logic, be a "natural-born" U.S. citizen--and the birthers can't have it both ways. If Obama's presidency is, in their eyes, legally illegitimate, then so would Cruz's be.

No matter how it's spun, Cruz's natural born citizen status requires the birthers to either retract previous statements, or denounce Cruz.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No matter how it's spun, Cruz's natural born citizen status requires the birthers to either retract previous statements, or denounce Cruz.

Or to ignore it and not give a rat's ass about how the librul media is trying to manufacture fake outrage over their "alleged hypocrisy".

 

[ZiprHead]

Look, let's be honest and call out the elephant in the room. The problem isn't Cruz's lack of being born in the U.S. It's his lack of lips. We can't have a president with no lips. What would the other world leaders say?

Mmfffmff mmfffffmmmmm mmmmffffmfmfmfm.

 

[Bronzeage]

No matter how it's spun, Cruz's natural born citizen status requires the birthers to either retract previous statements, or denounce Cruz.

Or to ignore it and not give a rat's ass about how the librul media is trying to manufacture fake outrage over their "alleged hypocrisy".

The number of sincere birthers is quite small. The rest are just disingenuous.

 

[arkirk]

Look, let's be honest and call out the elephant in the room. The problem isn't Cruz's lack of being born in the U.S. It's his lack of lips. We can't have a president with no lips. What would the other world leaders say?

Mmfffmff mmfffffmmmmm mmmmffffmfmfmfm.

His real crime is that he has nothing to offer the American people but austerity and suffering and he is real good about being willing to extend the suffering to refugees, seniors, the poor, etc. Fuck his god damned lack of lips...this turkey has no heart.

 

[bilby]

Of course Cruz is a natural born citizen; he hasn't got enough melanin in his skin for that to be in doubt.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I was young at the time and I rely on second hand information.

- - - Updated - - -

As much as I am enjoying Ted Cruz being poked with the birther nonsense, it really isn't that complicated. He is a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth, even if he is born outside of the USA, if his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth (She was), and his birth date is after December 23, 1952 (it is) and his mother "had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of at least one year" (she did).

http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

Trump going "full birther" on Cruz has me wondering yet again if his purpose is really running for President or destroying the Republican party from the inside.

But, even if Obama had been born in Kenya, he would also, by the same logic, be a "natural-born" U.S. citizen--and the birthers can't have it both ways. If Obama's presidency is, in their eyes, legally illegitimate, then so would Cruz's be.

No matter how it's spun, Cruz's natural born citizen status requires the birthers to either retract previous statements, or denounce Cruz.

But Obama's mother wasn't a US citizen. She was a jackal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Irony? It appears that if you go for the old school, original intent of the Founders, Cruz is not a citizen as Canada was not a property of the United States.

However, if we go by what is common law these days, Cruz is a citizen.

 

[maxparrish]

Irony? It appears that if you go for the old school, original intent of the Founders, Cruz is not a citizen as Canada was not a property of the United States.

However, if we go by what is common law these days, Cruz is a citizen.

Actually, no...even if you go "old school". Akhil Amar is the leading liberal originalist in the country, and he writes some of the very best constitutional legal historiography available. He argues that Cruz is "a natural born citizen" per the evidence of provided by original understanding.

From the founding to the present, Congress has enacted laws specifying that certain categories of foreign-born persons are citizens at birth. The earliest statute, passed in 1790, explicitly called certain foreign-born children of U.S. citizens “natural born citizens.” It did not say they should be treated “as if” they were “natural born citizens.” It said they were in law deemed and declared to be “natural born citizens.” Congressional laws have changed over the years, but this 1790 law makes clear that from the beginning, Congress by law has the power to define the outer boundaries of birth-citizenship by conferring citizenship at birth to various persons born outside the United States.

And here is the key point: The statute on the books on the day Cruz was born made him a citizen on that day. . . .

Note that the right question to ask is not: What were the natural-born statutory rules in 1788 or 1790? The right question is: What are the natural-born statutory rules on the day a given presidential candidate was born? These statutory rules have changed over the years, and Article II builds these future changes into its elegant language.

And another originalist, Andrew Hyman:

Virtually no one disputes that Cruz is a “born citizen,” and the only issue here is what “natural” means. The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote in 1756 that the word “natural” means “native,” and the word “native” in turn means either an “inhabitant” or an “offspring.” So a natural born citizen is someone who was born a citizen by virtue of being an inhabitant of the United States, or (like Cruz) by virtue of being an offspring, just as Coke and Blackstone said. I don’t know if Ted Cruz is the best candidate, but certainly he is a natural born citizen, in my opinion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Actually, no...even if you go "old school". Akhil Amar is the leading liberal originalist in the country, and he writes some of the very best constitutional legal historiography available. He argues that Cruz is "a natural born citizen" per the evidence of provided by original understanding.

From the founding to the present, Congress has enacted laws specifying that certain categories of foreign-born persons are citizens at birth. The earliest statute, passed in 1790, explicitly called certain foreign-born children of U.S. citizens “natural born citizens.” It did not say they should be treated “as if” they were “natural born citizens.” It said they were in law deemed and declared to be “natural born citizens.” Congressional laws have changed over the years, but this 1790 law makes clear that from the beginning, Congress by law has the power to define the outer boundaries of birth-citizenship by conferring citizenship at birth to various persons born outside the United States.

And here is the key point: The statute on the books on the day Cruz was born made him a citizen on that day. . . .

Note that the right question to ask is not: What were the natural-born statutory rules in 1788 or 1790? The right question is: What are the natural-born statutory rules on the day a given presidential candidate was born? These statutory rules have changed over the years, and Article II builds these future changes into its elegant language.

And another originalist, Andrew Hyman:

Virtually no one disputes that Cruz is a “born citizen,” and the only issue here is what “natural” means. The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote in 1756 that the word “natural” means “native,” and the word “native” in turn means either an “inhabitant” or an “offspring.” So a natural born citizen is someone who was born a citizen by virtue of being an inhabitant of the United States, or (like Cruz) by virtue of being an offspring, just as Coke and Blackstone said. I don’t know if Ted Cruz is the best candidate, but certainly he is a natural born citizen, in my opinion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

But some Birthers strongly disagree! (and some of them tend to get angry and insult dissenters, so I advice caution)

For example, take a look a Illíon's arguments here, or these guys, or Leo C. Donofrio

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's the rationale behind this law anyways? It seems like kind of a silly requirement. If the voters decide they like a guy, why would where he's born be a concern?

Are people worried about divided loyalties or something like that?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What's the rationale behind this law anyways? It seems like kind of a silly requirement. If the voters decide they like a guy, why would where he's born be a concern?

Are people worried about divided loyalties or something like that?

At the end of the revolutionary war, there was still some bitterness from pro-British Americans. This law was to prevent some outsider from coming in, winning the presidency, and try to undo the revolution politically.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's the rationale behind this law anyways? It seems like kind of a silly requirement. If the voters decide they like a guy, why would where he's born be a concern?

Are people worried about divided loyalties or something like that?

At the end of the revolutionary war, there was still some bitterness from pro-British Americans. This law was to prevent some outsider from coming in, winning the presidency, and try to undo the revolution politically.

Sorry, I should have clarified - what's the rationale behind this law today? The people back then were also worried about the coloured folk skewing the population numbers in terms of representation so they made them only 2/3rds of a person. They had a lot of really shitty ideas about a lot of things.

Is there a reason that this law hasn't been tossed into the dustbin of history like so many other ones from that period?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This all probably would have been ancient history had it not been for far right birtherism antics. Hysteria and conspiracy paranoia.

I guess this law would apply to shape-shifing alien reptiles too.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This all probably would have been ancient history had it not been for far right birtherism antics. Hysteria and conspiracy paranoia.

I guess this law would apply to shape-shifing alien reptiles too.

No laws apply to shape-shifing alien reptiles. Their plasma cannons allow them to do whatever they want to do.

 

[RavenSky]

No matter how it's spun, Cruz's natural born citizen status requires the birthers to either retract previous statements, or denounce Cruz.

Or to ignore it and not give a rat's ass about how the librul media is trying to manufacture fake outrage over their "alleged hypocrisy".

That will be how they actually handle it (which will make Trump's poll numbers go up even more

 

[RavenSky]

Actually, no...even if you go "old school". Akhil Amar is the leading liberal originalist in the country, and he writes some of the very best constitutional legal historiography available. He argues that Cruz is "a natural born citizen" per the evidence of provided by original understanding.



And another originalist, Andrew Hyman:

Virtually no one disputes that Cruz is a “born citizen,” and the only issue here is what “natural” means. The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote in 1756 that the word “natural” means “native,” and the word “native” in turn means either an “inhabitant” or an “offspring.” So a natural born citizen is someone who was born a citizen by virtue of being an inhabitant of the United States, or (like Cruz) by virtue of being an offspring, just as Coke and Blackstone said. I don’t know if Ted Cruz is the best candidate, but certainly he is a natural born citizen, in my opinion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

But some Birthers strongly disagree! (and some of them tend to get angry and insult dissenters, so I advice caution)

For example, take a look a Illíon's arguments here, or these guys, or Leo C. Donofrio

Everything that you quoted from Max is actually not the issue with regard to Cruz. (It was with President Obama, however, so thanks Max for confirming Obama is a "natural born citizen" of the USA)

The Cruz birthers are hanging their conspiracy theories on whether Cruz's mother was a US citizen at the time of Cruz's birth. One claim is that the mother was not actually born in Delaware as Cruz claims, and says there is no birth certificate for her on record. Another claim is that Cruz's mother voted in Canadian elections, thereby proving she was really a Canadian citizen.

We need to ask Tom Sawyer if this is a Canadian conspiracy to take over their southern neighbors.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Actually, no...even if you go "old school". Akhil Amar is the leading liberal originalist in the country, and he writes some of the very best constitutional legal historiography available. He argues that Cruz is "a natural born citizen" per the evidence of provided by original understanding.



And another originalist, Andrew Hyman:

Virtually no one disputes that Cruz is a “born citizen,” and the only issue here is what “natural” means. The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote in 1756 that the word “natural” means “native,” and the word “native” in turn means either an “inhabitant” or an “offspring.” So a natural born citizen is someone who was born a citizen by virtue of being an inhabitant of the United States, or (like Cruz) by virtue of being an offspring, just as Coke and Blackstone said. I don’t know if Ted Cruz is the best candidate, but certainly he is a natural born citizen, in my opinion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

But some Birthers strongly disagree! (and some of them tend to get angry and insult dissenters, so I advice caution)

For example, take a look a Illíon's arguments here, or these guys, or Leo C. Donofrio

Everything that you quoted from Max is actually not the issue with regard to Cruz. (It was with President Obama, however, so thanks Max for confirming Obama is a "natural born citizen" of the USA)

The Cruz birthers are hanging their conspiracy theories on whether Cruz's mother was a US citizen at the time of Cruz's birth. One claim is that the mother was not actually born in Delaware as Cruz claims, and says there is no birth certificate for her on record. Another claim is that Cruz's mother voted in Canadian elections, thereby proving she was really a Canadian citizen.

We need to ask Tom Sawyer if this is a Canadian conspiracy to take over their southern neighbors.

That depends on which Cruz birther we're talking about. The birthers I linked to hold that a necessary condition for being a natural born citizen is that the father be a citizen at the time of birth; Illíon thinks that's also sufficient, whereas the guys from the second link believe both parents must be citizens, it seems. I'm not sure about the third guy, but I get the impression from what I read that he thinks it's also sufficient.

Another frequent characteristic (in the admittedly few cases I've encountered) is that they accuse Cruz, Obama, Rubio, etc., of knowing perfectly well that they're not eligible, and call them "liars" or similar words. Also, they call those who express disagreement with them and who have studied American constitutional law, "liars", etc., say they know perfectly well that they're making false statements, etc.