Merged The Ted Cruz Birther Thread

Trebuchet said:
Next up: Bobby Jindal. Born in the USA, but to parents from India, AND his mother was already pregnant when he got here. He's an anchor baby.
Click to expand...

thaiboxerken said:
I think the point has been made. Birth certificates only matter to Republicans, and only if the candidate is black.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that for "good blacks" the issue is also overlooked. Can you imagine a black female anchor baby taking a Congressional win in Salt Lake City? Mia Love did! For the GOP!!! But it required a massive amount of out-of-state money because she's the new darling of the right. But while legal for the time, she's definitely an anchor baby. If I read correctly, her family couldn't have gotten in under the revised rules.
 
mumblethrax said:
... the wearing of tricornes...
Click to expand...

lol.png


16.5 was just quoting Alexander Hamilton's comments in the 1788 Federalist Papers.
Hamilton was later shot at dawn by the vice president of the USA, presumably for his unnaturally flowery speech and incessant trolling.
 
Well, I think that anyone that actually understands the law knows that merely having even one parent who is an American citizen, regardless of where you are born, qualifies you as a "natural born citizen" of the United States. All it means is that it requires you to have been a citizen (due to specific qualifying factors... meaning parents or place, either one) at birth, rather than someone who applied to it after immigrating.

Unfortunately, we're so effectively bombarded with disinformation nowadays that they could still string that out regarding Obama among some portions of the population. They won't do that with someone from their favored party though.
 
Last edited:
Ryokan said:
Is there any other country that has this requirement for being head of state? I know mine doesn't.

And yet I can't think of a single instance where a 'Manchurian Candidate', with a history of foreign citizenship, has gained democratic political power with a hidden foreign agenda. Can you mention one?

The strict need for a natural born citizen seems like paranoia to me, and I don't understand why not more Americans are questioning the why of this requirement, instead of just discussing the technicalities around it.

And why are you talking like you're making a speech in the 18th century?
Click to expand...

In a country of immigrants, there has always been a measure of xenophobia about the latest set of immigrants and how they are going to ruin the country.

I don't know but I think the clause might be there because of what happened in Europe at the time. Kings were brought in from other countries to rule. In England, George I, William and Mary, the Hapsburgs in Spain, etc.

mumblethrax said:
When Americans are forced to defend some especially stupid aspect of our sacred constitution (for example, if it is criticized for any reason), we turn to political theater to gather up an air of pompous importance around ourseslves. This includes ye olde times ſpeech, the wearing of tricornes, and offensive displays of whiteface.
Click to expand...

Why is the 'natural born citizen' clause especially stupid? Unnecessary, maybe, but stupid? You'll have to explain why it's stupid.
 
Spindrift said:
Why is the 'natural born citizen' clause especially stupid? Unnecessary, maybe, but stupid? You'll have to explain why it's stupid.
Click to expand...
Apart from the fact that xenophobia primarily afflicts idiots, it doesn't even succeed in its xenophobic goals. Someone born in the US to Soviet Kenyan parents, who return home immediately after birth, where the child is indoctrinated in Marxist madrasas and then returns to the US and waits out the residency clock is perfectly eligible to run. That sentence was atrocious, but you get the idea.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Granholm, who has lived in the US from the age of 4, can't.

It's an utterly pointless degradation of an important kind of symbolic equality. Every time a teacher says "Any one of you could be president one day," there's a kid who knows they're wrong. And not just because little Matty likes to eat paste.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Well, I think that anyone that actually understands the law knows that merely having even one parent who is an American citizen, regardless of where you are born, qualifies you as a "natural born citizen" of the United States. All it means is that it requires you to have been a citizen (due to specific qualifying factors... meaning parents or place, either one) at birth, rather than someone who applied to it after immigrating.

Unfortunately, we're so effectively bombarded with disinformation nowadays that they could still string that out regarding Obama among some portions of the population. They won't do that with someone from their favored party though.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty common for people not to be clear on the exact requirement. I recall when my nephew was born in London (early -90's) someone saying that he would not be eligible to be President.
 
sylvan8798 said:
I think it's pretty common for people not to be clear on the exact requirement. I recall when my nephew was born in London (early -90's) someone saying that he would not be eligible to be President.
Click to expand...

Ditto. When I was a kid, one of my best friends was born in Libya (his father was a radiologist working there at the time). I used to joke that he could never be president. No one ever corrected me.
 
Spindrift said:
I don't know but I think the clause might be there because of what happened in Europe at the time. Kings were brought in from other countries to rule. In England, George I, William and Mary, the Hapsburgs in Spain, etc.
Click to expand...

Nitpick: William, but not Mary, who was the daughter of James II.

Prior to marrying Liz, Prince Phillip was officially Greek.
 
Trebuchet said:
Next up: Bobby Jindal. Born in the USA, but to parents from India, AND his mother was already pregnant when he got here. He's an anchor baby.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting technicality.

according to some, life begins at conception.

Therefore, does not citizenship begin at conception as well?
 
mumblethrax said:
Apart from the fact that xenophobia primarily afflicts idiots, it doesn't even succeed in its xenophobic goals. Someone born in the US to Soviet Kenyan parents, who return home immediately after birth, where the child is indoctrinated in Marxist madrasas and then returns to the US and waits out the residency clock is perfectly eligible to run. That sentence was atrocious, but you get the idea.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Granholm, who has lived in the US from the age of 4, can't.

It's an utterly pointless degradation of an important kind of symbolic equality. Every time a teacher says "Any one of you could be president one day," there's a kid who knows they're wrong. And not just because little Matty likes to eat paste.
Click to expand...

Every time a teacher says "Any one of you could be president one day", they're lying.
 
mumblethrax said:
Apart from the fact that xenophobia primarily afflicts idiots, it doesn't even succeed in its xenophobic goals. Someone born in the US to Soviet Kenyan parents, who return home immediately after birth, where the child is indoctrinated in Marxist madrasas and then returns to the US and waits out the residency clock is perfectly eligible to run. That sentence was atrocious, but you get the idea.

.
Click to expand...

He ain't lying!

PROOF!

Problem?
 
Spindrift said:
Every time a teacher says "Any one of you could be president one day", they're lying.
Click to expand...
I believe that's what I just said. But there's an important difference between being disqualified in practice and disqualified in principle--the latter part ought to be a concern.
 
theprestige said:
If you say so.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it is a "benefit of the doubt" thing. I don't think it should be, and I'm disappointed if it is. I'd consider it a serious problem if lax enforcement means unqualified candidates make it to the ballot.

And regardless of the level of enforcement, I think candidates should be prompt and complete when filing their campaign intentions. I also think that candidates should always be prepared to produce their qualifications in the appropriate venue, if they have not done so already, when asked. I think this should be a fundamental principle of campaign regulation, regardless of how often it's been asked of other candidates, and regardless of who is asking or the motive imputed to them.

If a birther of any stripe wants to see that the candidate they most hate has a valid US birth certificate or equivalent document on file with the election commission, then the candidate's immediate and unqualified answer should be "of course, and here's the commission's confirmation of the same".

"Nobody else ever got asked this question" is not a valid response from any candidate regarding their fundamental eligibility to hold the office they're campaigning for. And now that it's been most certainly asked of Obama, there's no excuse if Cruz is unable or unwilling to answer it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it is a benefit of the doubt sort of thing, I'm saying I trust their opponents and party to vet them and I trust that the officials who determine who qualifies for the ballot and who does not qualify for the ballot do their duty. Just as I did prior to Obama running. The system has worked for quite some time without the assistance of Mr. Trump's investigative team.
 
I didn't see this posted anywhere but just for the record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Ted_Cruz

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz (born 1970), a Republican United States Senator from Texas, announced on March 22, 2015, that he was running for the Republican Party's nomination for president in the 2016 election.[116] Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada,[117] to a "U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father",[118] giving him dual Canadian-American citizenship.[119] Cruz applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship and ceased being a citizen of Canada, on May 14, 2014.[120][121] Professor Chin (see above),[118] former Solicitor General Paul Clement,[122] former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal,[122] and Professor Peter Spiro of Temple University Law School[123] believe that Cruz meets the constitutional requirements to be eligible for the presidency.[124] Orly Taitz, Larry Klayman, and Mario Apuzzo, who each filed multiple lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility, have asserted that Cruz is not eligible.[125][126]
Click to expand...

Basically law professors and former Solicitor Generals say he meets the requirement. The only people who think he doesn't meet the requirement are the same Birthers who think Obama's ineligible (at least they are consistent). Let's see if they actually file lawsuits though. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom