Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
It is pretty clear why they had to do this and I do not blame them.
^All the polls and research shows this to be true.He has opposed efforts to reward millions of illegal aliens with citizenship and voting rights, given that the majority of them are anti-gunners who have ignored and flouted our laws.
With Rand as POTUS you can kiss your guns go by years after he leaves office if he is not stopped by Congress from providing a pathway to citizenship to illegals and legals. Rand is no different from any other Republican in that respect. I am no fan of Cruz but his immigration stance in that respect cannot be ignored regardless of his policy of increasing H1B immigration.
* See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
* Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.
How many threads do I have to go through this. Here are these for now, I have more that I can find from my earlier posts.
Poll: Latino Illegal Immigrants Favor Dems 8-to-1Originally Posted by Gun Owners of America
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ants-democrat/
Last edited by kahless; 09-14-2015 at 01:30 PM.
* See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
* Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.
I'm not arguing based on the law. I am an original intent constitutionalist. The 1790 law is the strongest evidence of original intent. Yes, the natural born citizen portion was stricken. But it wasn't replaced. In fact, the phrase "natural born citizen" has never again been written into U.S. law.
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
Yes, I do know that he wasn't actually a US citizen at birth. According to law, he was an alien to the US at birth; and according to his birth certificate he retained Canadian citizenship at birth. The public at large will never know when Ted Cruz became a US citizen until he releases documentation that proves his parents met statutory requirements and that the US State Dept. reviewed his case and granted him with US citizenship. If Ted Cruz had any of these documents, I don't know why he'd only release his Canadian birth certificate and not any of these official, legal, US documents.
R∃VO˩UTION
Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen. As you've said, " Naturalization by definition is the process by which a non-citizen becomes a citizen". Ted Cruz did have to go through a process before retaining US citizenship and he should have legal documents to back his claims to US citizenship. You said " Cruz though, did meet the statutory obligations."; but what evidence do you have of that? He's released only his Canadian birth certificate which is not a legal US document, and has not released any proof that his mother met statutory requirements and that the State Dept. did indeed grant him with US citizenship. That's beside the point though. Ted Cruz may very well be eligible to US citizenship at or after birth (but before the statutory age limit). However, he is only made a citizen through statutes of Immigration and Nationality Acts. No Natural Born Citizen would have to look to Immigration laws to retain US citizenship; only naturalized citizens such as Ted Cruz.
Supreme Court Justices in Rogers v Bellei concluded that Bellei, like Cruz born to a US citizen mother and alien father abroad on foreign soil, were only afforded US citizenship because of Congressional action or Congressional generosity, that their citizenship could be revoked by Congress through statute, that they did go through a naturalization process, and that they were not covered by the 14th Amendments definition of a "person born or naturalized in the United States..".
US Citizenship and Immigration Services have held on several occasions, in similar instances, that:
""When there is a claim of citizenship . . . one born abroad is presumed to be an alien and must go forward with evidence to establish his claim to United States citizenship." Matter of Tijerina-Villarreal, 13 I&N Dec.327, 330 (BIA 1969) (citations omitted)
If his citizenship is derived solely through naturalization acts of the Immigration law, than how can you say he's not a naturalized citizen? And what proof is there that his parents even met the requirements of the law to to retain US citizenship for him?
R∃VO˩UTION
Are you a Cruz supporter, because you sound like many of the Cruz supporters that I constantly argue with who twist law and logic to say Ted is eligible. The 'Natural Born Citizen' clause was stricken and yes, REPLACED, in the 1795 Naturalization Act. As you can see, from the pictures I provided, that 'NBC' was replaced with 'citizen' and this legislation became apart of and known as "an act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization". If Congress changed the law to only consider these children born abroad "citizens" and no longer "natural born citizens", then why weren't similar changes made to ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 of the US Constituion? If the Founders or Congress at the time had intended for these children born abroad to be Natural Born US Citizens, then why was that phrase alone eliminated entirely in the 1795 Naturalization Act?
1790 legislation has no legal bearing, as you've admitted I think, and carries no more of an "original intent" than the 1795 legislation. The 1790 legislation was repealed only 5 years later, under the Presidency of George Washington, while many of the Founders were still alive. How many more Founders became President after the 1795 Naturalization Act, and yet still none of them or anyone in the Legislature reverted back to this 1790 definition for children born abroad? The 1790 legislation does not represent the original intent of the Founders, it more likely represents an error of Congress at the time; one that was fixed just 5 years later. Where the Constituion gives Congress the authority to establish naturalization codes for admitting foreigners into US citizenship, this and Ted Cruz's claim to citizenship fall under that provision.
The phrase "NBC" was never written into law again because it is common sense and to be understood as such that a "NBC" is one who is born on US soil. There was never any need to establish standards for "Natural Born Citizens" or to mention it in legislation.
Even in the very eligibility clause itself (ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5) the Founders used both the terms "Natural Born Citizen" and "Citizen", so the Founders and the Congress at the time knew there was a difference between the two terms and made the point to differentiate between the two.
R∃VO˩UTION
I've known ever since 2012, when Cruz ran for Senator and endorsed Rick Perry over Ron Paul, that Cruz was a wolf in sheeps clothing acting as an anti-establishment candidate riding off the back of the Tea Party only to spoil the next Presidential race for the real Liberty caucus. Ted Cruz is the major threat for Rand and the Liberty caucus; not Bush or Christie or Trump or anyone else. The establishments goal to counter the Ron Paul Revolution is being played out with Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is the manufactured anti-establishment candidate being used to breakup the liberty caucus and the original intent of this Tea Party thing. Why some of you go out of your way to defend his eligibility, despite law or logic, is a mystery to me. I whole-heartedly welcome the debate; but some you just want to defy law and common sense.
R∃VO˩UTION
* See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
* Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.
Didn't Cruz already rise in Iowa and fall somewhat like Rubio? Maybe NH too? Last NH poll I saw I remember Paul being ahead of Cruz and others.
The national polls are just that. It's Iowa and NH that will shape the race. It always is and those two state polls vary from the national polls, do they not?
If Rand does not win the Republican nomination, he should buck the controlled two party system and run as an Independent for President in 2016 and give Americans a real option to vote for.
We are all born libertarians then something goes really wrong. Despite this truth, most people are still libertarians yet not know it.
Missed this. Didn't take them long to go from Washington outsiders to Washington $#@! lobbyists. The kicker is they still have Ron's quote on their site...."The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." - Ron Paul.
$#@! 'em. Membership ended.
Most abortions come from low income families, single mothers, and minorities. 58,000,000 abortions have been carried out since 1973 in America. Assuming that 50,000,000 of them were still alive, 30,000,000 of them were adults, half voted, and they voted 75% democrat it would add 3.75 million Republicans and 11.25 million Democrats. Had those 58,000,000 not been aborted, they would have had another 50,000,000 children and grand children by now, millions of whom would be old enough to vote.
You would likely have 10 million extra Democratic voters on net with legalized abortion since 1973. By this logic, they need to go after prolife candidates too, given that aborted babies are far more numerical than illegal immigrants, more likely to vote (only 40% of Hispanics vote), and more likely to vote democrat.
Connect With Us