Trump brands Cruz a 'nasty guy'

[HAPPY2BME]

I wonder how long we'll last after Europe/Britain succumbs?

================================

That is a good question to ask your Republican congressman or senator who is supporting Obama's  'refugee resettlement' program of over 300,000 Muslims this year.  And that's just for starters.

[jmyrlefuller]

When you look at these two examples, it become very clear that citizenship by statute, even when granted at birth via collective naturalization, is very different that natural born Citizenship, because natural born Citizenship, as a Natural Law construct, is not dependent on the existence of any statute!

None of this is true.

[katzenjammer]

None of this is true.

Only to those ignorant of the facts.

Review Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) and get back to me.

(Do you need a Natural Law reference that explains the construct of Natural Born Citizenship as well?)


ETA: If you want another reference from earlier in history:

"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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."

-- United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)


Hint: You need to understand the legal and Constitutional definition of "naturalization."

[Bigun]

Only to those ignorant of the facts.

Review Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) and get back to me.

(Do you need a Natural Law reference that explains the construct of Natural Born Citizenship as well?)


ETA: If you want another reference from earlier in history:
-- United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)


Hint: You need to understand the legal and Constitutional definition of "naturalization."

And please don't forget this part of that same decision:

"(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

[katzenjammer]

And please don't forget this part of that same decision:

"(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

No sir, I never forget that part either!  (I have just been attempting to illustrate the difference between citizenship via statute (i.e., all forms of naturalization) and natural born citizenship, to those that may be interesting in actually learning something.  As we agreed, it was ALL discussed and documented thoroughly in the prior long-running thread.  I probably shouldn't bother wasting my time!   )

[alicewonders]

Churchill!  Yes, an interesting story there, the British statesman and leader, born outside of the US to an American mother.

I wonder why no one ever considered Sir Winston to be an American natural born Citizen?  Certainly many would have supported his candidacy for the Presidency!  In fact, Churchill was not even an American citizen.

There must have been something different when Churchill was born in England on November 30, 1874 to the American mother, Jeanette Jerome, than when Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 to an American mother, Eleanor Darragh Wilson, in Canada.

What could that difference have been?   

The difference is that the statute (McCarran-Walter Act, or INA of 1952) that grants Mr. Cruz's claim to US Citizenship wasn't passed until 1952.  (Poor Winston!)

So, it is easy to see why, one person with very similar birth circumstances as another, has a claim to US citizenship, and the other doesn't.  It is because a naturalization statute existed when one person was born, and didn't exist when the other person was born. When you look at these two examples, it become very clear that citizenship by statute, even when granted at birth via collective naturalization, is very different that natural born Citizenship, because natural born Citizenship, as a Natural Law construct, is not dependent on the existence of any statute!

(But all was not lost for Sir Winston!  The United States so appreciated his valiant allied leadership, that he was made an Honorary Citizen of the United States in 1963!)

Thanks for that explanation Katz - it's an issue I've had difficulty understanding and the info you have posted here has helped me to understand it better.

[jmyrlefuller]

Only to those ignorant of the facts.

Review Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) and get back to me.

(Do you need a Natural Law reference that explains the construct of Natural Born Citizenship as well?)


ETA: If you want another reference from earlier in history:
-- United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)


Hint: You need to understand the legal and Constitutional definition of "naturalization."

Natural Law has no place in the U.S. Constitution.

[Sanguine]

Churchill!  Yes, an interesting story there, the British statesman and leader, born outside of the US to an American mother.

I wonder why no one ever considered Sir Winston to be an American natural born Citizen?  Certainly many would have supported his candidacy for the Presidency!  In fact, Churchill was not even an American citizen.

There must have been something different when Churchill was born in England on November 30, 1874 to the American mother, Jeanette Jerome, than when Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 to an American mother, Eleanor Darragh Wilson, in Canada.

What could that difference have been?   

The difference is that the statute (McCarran-Walter Act, or INA of 1952) that grants Mr. Cruz's claim to US Citizenship wasn't passed until 1952.  (Poor Winston!)

So, it is easy to see why, one person with very similar birth circumstances as another, has a claim to US citizenship, and the other doesn't.  It is because a naturalization statute existed when one person was born, and didn't exist when the other person was born. When you look at these two examples, it become very clear that citizenship by statute, even when granted at birth via collective naturalization, is very different that natural born Citizenship, because natural born Citizenship, as a Natural Law construct, is not dependent on the existence of any statute!

(But all was not lost for Sir Winston!  The United States so appreciated his valiant allied leadership, that he was made an Honorary Citizen of the United States in 1963!)

Also, Churchill did not run for US president and considered himself an English citizen.   It wasn't an issue.

[katzenjammer]

Natural Law has no place in the U.S. Constitution.

OK, pal, whatever you say!   

[jmyrlefuller]

"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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."

Here we go again with the jurisdiction debate.

Persons of American citizenship are subject to U.S. jurisdiction everywhere. Our tax code is one prominent example. Thus, those born to such people are also under U.S. jurisdiction, by federal statute, and are natural born citizens.

If you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. Lacking any legislation otherwise, it is as simple as that. You cannot naturalize something until after it legally exists, and under U.S. common and legislative law, that is at birth. If it is born a citizen, it cannot be naturalized. Ted Cruz came out of the womb an American citizen under the laws set forth regarding U.S. jurisdiction.

[katzenjammer]

Also, Churchill did not run for US president and considered himself an English citizen.   It wasn't an issue.

Oh!  Because Ted Cruz wants to run for the Presidency of the US, it renders all of the facts, the Constitution, and prior Supreme Court rulings all moot?  OK, then.  Then he has absolutely nothing in his way!!   

[jmyrlefuller]

Besides, what does the birther crap have to do with this discussion anyway? Don't we have enough ignorance of basic language on the other threads?

[Bigun]

Here we go again with the jurisdiction debate.

Persons of American citizenship are subject to U.S. jurisdiction everywhere. Our tax code is one prominent example. Thus, those born to such people are also under U.S. jurisdiction, by federal statute, and are natural born citizens.

If you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. Lacking any legislation otherwise, it is as simple as that. You cannot naturalize something until after it legally exists, and under U.S. common and legislative law, that is at birth. If it is born a citizen, it cannot be naturalized. Ted Cruz came out of the womb an American citizen under the laws set forth regarding U.S. jurisdiction.

I would strongly suggest that this is a good time for you to stop embarrassing yourself!

[Sanguine]

Oh!  Because Ted Cruz wants to run for the Presidency of the US, it renders all of the facts, the Constitution, and prior Supreme Court rulings all moot?  OK, then.  Then he has absolutely nothing in his way!!   

Wow, that's an amazing leap of logic based on what I said!  I stand in awe. 

[jmyrlefuller]

I would strongly suggest that this is a good time for you to stop embarrassing yourself!

You people are the ones embarrassing yourselves.

[katzenjammer]

"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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."

Here we go again with the jurisdiction debate.

Persons of American citizenship are subject to U.S. jurisdiction everywhere. Our tax code is one prominent example. Thus, those born to such people are also under U.S. jurisdiction, by federal statute, and are natural born citizens.

There is no jurisdictional debate; that argument is completely orthogonal to the discussion of Cruz.

If you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. Lacking any legislation otherwise, it is as simple as that. You cannot naturalize something until after it legally exists, and under U.S. common and legislative law, that is at birth. If it is born a citizen, it cannot be naturalized. Ted Cruz came out of the womb an American citizen under the laws set forth regarding U.S. jurisdiction.

A whole litany of Supreme Court cases argues against all of that, you were given a couple as reference.

Think of it this way, if the Congress (using their plenary powers to regulate naturalization) never created any acts subsequent to Mr. Churchill's birth, then Mr. Cruz would be in a comparable situation: clearly a natural born Citizen of Canada, and arguably at least a Cuban citizen, but not an American citizen.  It can't be any clearer: Mr. Cruz is only a citizen of the US by virtue of a Congressional act - a portion of a statute regulating naturalization.  If you have a serious interest in understanding this, review the materials that you were provided, and review the long thread from a week or so ago.  I can't offer you anything more than that.

[Bigun]

You people are the ones embarrassing yourselves.

Can you point to a single instance where the SCOTUS has ever applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”?

I'll wait!

[katzenjammer]

Wow, that's an amazing leap of logic based on what I said!  I stand in awe.

I'm sorry, Sanguine.  I may have misunderstood the point that you were making (my bad), can you clarify it for me?

[Sanguine]

I'm sorry, Sanguine.  I may have misunderstood the point that you were making (my bad), can you clarify it for me?

I was making the point that Churchill was not a appropriate comparison because he didn't run for president and didn't consider himself an American citizen.  I made no comment, and will continue to not, about the possible legal issues surrounding someone who does consider himself an American citizen and is running for president.

[katzenjammer]

I was making the point that Churchill was not a appropriate comparison because he didn't run for president and didn't consider himself an American citizen.  I made no comment, and will continue to not, about the possible legal issues surrounding someone who does consider himself an American citizen and is running for president.

Thank you.

Well the birth circumstances, the historical existence (or not) of specific naturalization statutes, and the resultant grant of citizenship (or not, in Mr. Churchill's case), all remain an appropriate comparison regardless of the fact that Churchill did not seek the US Presidency.  (I still have a gallon of milk in my refrigerator, whether or not I open the door to look at it or drink it.)

[Sanguine]

Thank you.

Well the birth circumstances, the historical existence (or not) of specific naturalization statutes, and the resultant grant of citizenship (or not, in Mr. Churchill's case), all remain an appropriate comparison regardless of the fact that Churchill did not seek the US Presidency.  (I still have a gallon of milk in my refrigerator, whether or not I open the door to look at it or drink it.)

I understand what you're saying, Katzenjammer.  I'm saying I'm not going to get into this argument again.  I've said my peace, and I'm moving on. 

Oh, and, you sure the milk's still there?  It doesn't stay long in my house.

[Jazzhead]

Problem is,  the birthers are caught in a trap of their own devise.    The whole birther premise with Obama was that, if they could prove, in contradiction of the State of Hawaii, that Obama was born in Kenya,  then he'd be disqualified because his mom was American, but his dad was foreign.   That the (supposed) circumstance of his birth outside the country robbed both the mother of her natural matrimony and her son's right to be a full-fledged American by reason of birth is an article of faith that requires the birthers then to take the same position with Cruz lest they be exposed as frauds and worse. 

Ironically,  Trump may be right about the only practical response Cruz may have if the clamour gets louder.    Too many of his erstwhile supporters can't vote for him,  because in their eyes he's ineligible for the office of President.   They're already out on a limb,  and the only way to get them off it is to sue and get a court to issue the political cover that will let them support Cruz without embarrassing themselves.   

[katzenjammer]

I understand what you're saying, Katzenjammer.  I'm saying I'm not going to get into this argument again.  I've said my peace, and I'm moving on. 

Oh, and, you sure the milk's still there?  It doesn't stay long in my house.

I understand (and respect) your point of view as well.  When you brought up Churchill in this thread, I thought that he was an excellent point of comparison, that's why I quoted your post. 

(And, since I am the only one in the household that drinks milk, I am always sure of its existence, or not, in the refrigerator!)

---------------- general comment:

I, nor anyone else, can do anything about the circumstances of Ted Cruz's birth.  Those were ordained back in the 1960s when his parents decided to leave the US and move to Canada, and subsequently birth a child while living outside of the US.  (And I am almost CERTAIN that neither of them ever imagined what a storm their normal, human decisions would generate decades later!)  And none of us can wish away:

- the particular clause in the Constitution that is causing so much angst, nor,
- the non-arguable fact that Congress was given plenary power to regulate naturalization in the same Constitution, nor,
- the clear history of SCOTUS rulings that have clarified and validated numerous examples of Congressional action in that realm, nor,
- the clear fact that the only manner in which a foreign born person can gain US citizenship is via a form of naturalization (of which other forms clearly exist (in US statute)), beyond the voluntary, proactive steps that the adult foreign born must use to remedy their alien status--that which we typically refer to as "naturalization" in common parlance).

I would think that everyone here would prefer to have an open and rational debate about his (and other's) eligibility issue.  The issue will continue to exist no matter how many people in the media scold everyone to stop talking about it.

---------------

For you, Sanguine, and the rest of the Ted Cruz supporters, my only wish is that the matter is resolved in some way, that is beneficial to Mr. Cruz as a professed lover of the US Constitution, but more importantly, to this Republic and all of its citizens.

 

Edit: stupid auto-correct!

[Sanguine]

I understand (and respect) your point of view as well.  When you brought up Churchill in this thread, I thought that he was an excellent point of comparison, that's why I quoted your post. 

(And, since I am the only one in the household that drinks milk, I am always sure of its existence, or not, in the refrigerator!)

---------------- general comment:

I, nor anyone else, can do anything about the circumstances of Ted Cruz's birth.  Those were ordained back in the 1960s when his parents decided to leave the US and move to Canada, and subsequently birth a child while living outside of the US.  (And I am almost CERTAIN that neither of them ever imagined what a storm their normal, human decisions would generate decades later!)  And none of us can wish away:

- the particular clause in the Constitution that is causing so much against, nor,
- the non-arguable fact that Congress was given plenary power to regulate naturalization in the same Constitution, nor,
- the clear history of SCOTUS rulings that have clarified and validated numerous examples of Congressional action in that realm, nor,
- the clear fact that the only manner in which a foreign born person can gain US citizenship is via a form of naturalization (of which other forms clearly exist (in US statute)), beyond the voluntary, proactive steps that the adult foreign born must use to remedy their alien status--that which we typically refer to as "naturalization" in common parlance).

I would think that everyone here would prefer to have an open and rational debate about his (and other's) eligibility issue.  The issue will continue to exist no matter how many people in the media scold everyone to stop talking about it.

---------------

For you, Sanguine, and the rest of the Ted Cruz supporters, my only wish is that the matter is resolved in some way, that is beneficial to Mr. Cruz as a professed lover of the US Constitution, but more importantly, to this Republic and all of its citizens.

 

Well said.  The only thing I would add, is that I'm an "America supporter".   I think Ted Cruz is the best and possibly only one of our current crop of candidates who could/would make a positive difference in the direction that we are going. 

[Sanguine]

An interesting take:

Trump Says Cruz Is 'Nasty.' Good. We Need a Nasty Republican.


On Sunday, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump complained about his rival, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). The two have been engaged in attacks on one another since Trump opened up his guns on Cruz over Cruz’s Canadian birthplace, and Cruz responded by targeting Trump’s “New York values.” But on Sunday, Trump took it to the next level, smacking Cruz personally for his supposed inability to play nicely with others. Appearing on ABC News with Clinton surrogate George Stephonopoulos, Trump stated, “Look, the truth is, he’s a nasty guy. Nobody likes him. Nobody in Congress likes him. Nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him. He’s a very – he’s got an edge that’s not good. You can’t make deals with people like that and it’s not a good thing, it’s not a good thing for the country. Very nasty guy.”

This is odd coming from a candidate who has maligned a war hero, imitated a handicapped journalist, and questioned Megyn Kelly’s menstrual functions. But on Monday, he followed up that attack by doubling down, telling Fox and Friends, “Everybody hates Ted. It’s a very tough thing. They all hate him for a lot of reasons, but they all hate him.”

Nonetheless, Trump’s slap at Cruz isn’t inaccurate. Cruz isn’t popular in the Senate, or with the establishment wing of the Republican Party. It’s that fact that has kept him from rising with the establishment, even though it’s clear he’s positioned as the top possibility of knocking off Trump. Cruz is so unpopular that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has now refused to pass a resolution reinforcing Cruz’s eligibility for the presidency.

Those in the media find Cruz’s polarizing attitude toward politics detrimental. Joe Scarborough of MSNBC whined, “it’s one thing being an outsider; it’s another thing being a pariah.” Mika Brzezinski added, “How do you make deals if everyone hates your guts?”

Here’s the answer: you don’t. Good....

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2676/trump-says-cruz-nasty-good-we-need-nasty-ben-shapiro#.Vp0OB1qgBaE.twitter