Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

So what will Ted Cruz do with illegals already in the U.S.?

So what will Ted Cruz do with illegals already in the U.S.?

“We do not live in a police state . . . I will enforce the law.”

Back in November, Donald Trump asserted that if elected president he would have a “humane deportation force” to round up all illegal immigrants and deport them. 

This statement is now being used in interviews with other presidential candidates who are opposed to amnesty and want to close the border and enforce existing immigration law.

For example, in a Sunday interview, CNN’s Jake Tapper harangued Ted Cruz on Trump’s concept of a “deportation force.”

Watch:

CNN reports:

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz does not plan to authorize a special force to deport the undocumented immigrants currently in the country, he told CNN’s Jake Tapper, setting up a policy contrast with Donald Trump.

. . . . Cruz, who over the past few weeks has specifically endorsed deportations after months of resisting, said in an interview that aired Sunday on “State of the Union” that the U.S. should catch those who came here illegally under normal law enforcement practices, not through round-ups of the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the U.S.

“No, I don’t intend to send jackboots to knock on your door and every door in America. That’s not how we enforce the law for any crime,” Cruz told Tapper as his campaign bus ambled across northern Iowa.

I’m glad to hear him speak plainly and to mention jackboots; the latter was my first thought when I heard Trump’s proposal back in November–just as it was my first thought when Obama was trumpeting the need for a “civilian national security force.”  Once such a federal “force” is established and given broad authority to round people up, it would never be dismantled, and some future president would be able to use and/or adapt it for his or her own agenda with the stroke of a pen (or a phone call).

Anyway, Cruz’s approach to illegals already in the country is simple and would be massively effective:  reverse Obama’s executive amnesty, enforce existing law, and strengthen the rules that need it.

CNN continues:

“We don’t have any system that knocks on the doors of every person in America,” Cruz told Tapper. “We also don’t have people going door-to-door looking for murderers. We don’t live in a police state. We do have law enforcement.”

Cruz indicated that he would only deport those who are apprehended, such as those who commit crimes or are caught by prospective employers without having immigrated legally. Immigrations and Custom Enforcement or Border Patrol agents could also apprehend those along the border.

On his website, Cruz has laid his plan to stop illegal immigration.  These ideas coupled with the enforcement and/or strengthening of existing law—including ending sanctuary cities, stopping “catch and release” programs, ending entitlements for illegals, and strengthening e-verify—would go a long way to solving the problem without turning our country into a third world police state.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Cruz needs to lead by example — self police the natural-born citizen clause by dropping out of the presidential race.

    Please do tell us what sources you’re referring to when you say someone born to a US citizen is not a US citizen.

    Tyrconnell in reply to Skookum. | January 11, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    Only two types of American citizens, natural-born and naturalized.

    Fordham Law Prof: Ted Cruz Not ‘Natural Born’ Under ‘Originalist’ View of Constitution

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/01/11/2746384/

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 11, 2016 at 7:09 pm

      And there you were, just the other day, saying this was nothing, and T-rump just wanted to help Cruz.

      You’re a stinking, cowardly, lying SOS, as is your “man”.

        I’m just passing the link on. Someone posted above requesting a source for the claim. This is just one of them.

        Trump is helping Cruz because the democrats and the DC media won’t be able to spring this on him as an October surprise should he be the GOP nominee.

        What will really hurt Cruz is when Trump starts pointing out how he can’t be trusted on immigration and the wall. He’s holding that back until just before 2/1/16.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 11, 2016 at 7:21 pm

        Sure, sure. You’re just being helpful.

        What a lying SOS! Put up the OTHER nutter links, too, why don’t you?

        You can put up the John McAnus and Geraldo Rivera comments, while you’re being a lying, cowardly, sleaze-ball SOS.

        You and T-krump are a fitting pair.

      There are no “Originalist’s” around to counter the baloney of the Fordham law “professor”. OTOH, we have law in force on the date of Cruz’s birth, that makes it clear, when you are born to a US citizen (male or female), you are a US citizen at birth. That makes you a natural born citizen.

      Trump got his couple of days out of this because Cruz did not prepare ahead of time. Beats me why. In any event the only possible issue was put to bed with moms BC. Trump needs to shut the hell up about it now.

        Actually according to Harvard constitutional law scholar tonight on CNN 1. This is an open question never decided by supreme court. 2. Under the originalust view of constitution that Cruz supports the Fordham law professor is correct and Cruz is not a natural born citizen. 3. Under a living breathing liberal constitutional view that Cruz does not support Cruz would be a natural born citizen.

        Tribe called Cruz out for being a hypocrite with regard to his support for original intent except when it would disqualify him for president.

        FYI it appears that the original intent was you had to be born on USA soil or if born outside USA soil your Father had to be USA citizen. Mother didn’t count.

        Of course their are arguments that 14th amendment might require counting mothers as well, but Trump is correct this is all open question that democrats will bring lawsuits about in general election.

        Combine this with Cruz lack of appeal to moderates and independents and clearly Trump is far and away most electable general election candidate.

          Professor Tribe and CNN at the same time. WOW, Cruz is in trouble now. From the Harvard Law School Parody, a sampling of “He’s Larry Tribe.”

          He studied math, he studied law
          And he’s the most prolific scholar
          That the whole world ever saw
          He’s drafted foreign constitutions
          He’s the president of Spain
          In the book they say he copied
          He thanked Clinton aide Ron Klain

          Because he’s Tribe
          He’s Larry Tribe
          He’s not just Harvard’s best professor
          He’s the smartest man alive
          No matter what the rumors say
          He is the Marshall of today
          Because he’s Tribe
          He’s Larry Tribe! (hey hey)

          Now Laurence Tribe says that he didn’t borrow material from Henry Abrahamson’s 1974 book for use in Tribe’s 1985 book “God Save This Honorable Court” – his research assistant Ron Klain did. So Klain wrote the book with Tribe claiming authorship? UH-HUH!

          ConradCA in reply to Gary Britt. | January 13, 2016 at 4:33 am

          Your mistake is not realizing that everything on CNN is progressive propaganda. Lies designed to help the progressive fascists (Dems) win.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 11, 2016 at 9:24 pm

        8 U.S.C. §1401, the class of people considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth” includes the following:

        (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

        Sooooo, Commander Auto-schlonger, you’ve schlonged yourself yet again.

        I thought you made pretensions of being a lawyer? Oh. Well.

          That statute does not define “natural born citizen”. That phrase does not appear in that statute. If that statute settled things I think constitutional scholars at Fordham and Harvard would have picked up on it. Stop pretending to be a lawyer. You are not one as your writing clearly shows.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 11, 2016 at 10:23 pm

          And you, Britt, are a lying sack of shit, as you know.

          You LIKE it! And sucking on your Trump doll.

          As I said your writing clearly indicates you are not a lawyer.

          Gary, if your a citizen at birth, and clearly Cruz is, there is no other argument to be made. Since the constitution did not define, the cite rags makes is the definition.

          Barry respectfully you are wrong. The act Rags cites says foreign born to a citizen is a citizen. It does not say foreign born to citizen is a natural born citizen.

          The naturalization act of 1790 said foreign born to citizen was a natural born citizen, but the naturalization act of 1795 changed it and took away natural born citizen status and made it just citizen status using the same language both these acts use to describe naturalized citizens.

          So there is certainly an argument that foreign born to citizens are citizens but not natural born citizens.

          Now do I think supreme court would go for strict original meaning which would seem to be that natural born means born on USA soil unless statute says otherwise as the 1790 statute did. Probably not but Trump is correct this is not settled law and demmocrats will sue over it in general election.

          “Barry respectfully you are wrong.”

          You confuse opinion with right and “wrong”.

          See here for a reasonable discussion:

          https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

          ConradCA in reply to Ragspierre. | January 13, 2016 at 4:36 am

          Doesn’t Tyrant Obama the Liar pretend to be a constitutional scholar? He proved that he isn’t by making 4 recess appointments when the Senate wasn’t in recess.

          Barry opinions can be right or wrong. In this case your opinion that there is no open question as yet unsettled as to whether Cruz is a natural born citizen is wrong. Yes I’m familiar with the line of analysis that says natural born citizen merely means a citizen from birth. However there are other arguments from a more originalist point of view. For example the 1790 naturalization act conferred natural born citizen status upon foreign born to a citizen. The 190 act actually uses the words natural born citizen. But the 1795 naturalization act and all subsequent reinactments by the actual words of the statute only confer citizen status not natural born citizen status on foreign born to citizens. The words of the statute N atter because without the statute foreign born to citizen do not become citizens at all. So the words in the statute describing the type of citizenship cobferred to foreign born to citizen count. So using the actual words of the statute only the 1790 act conferred natural born status. The 1795 act and all subsequent acts changed it and only confer citizen status. Note tgese are naturalization statutes. That is their title. The foreign born to a citizen is naturaluzed at birth into naturalized citizenship status.

          So Barry there absolutely more than one reasonable interpretation of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen or not. Trump us right this is not settled law and Trump is right when he says demicrats will sue about this and use it as a club to beat Cryz.

          Barry FYI, this paper takes a breathtakingly long, deep, and convoluted look at the meaning of natural born citizen. Thought I would pass it on. Its conclusions, if any, are its complicated and unclear with reasonable arguments on all sides but probably thinks the argument that Cruz is a natural born citizen is the best out of the several reasonable and unsettled choices.

          http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=scholar

          Gary,

          I know all that. Have for years. Yes, you can say there is reasonable discussion about what is a NBC.

          In the absence of a constitutional amendment clearing it up, I’m going with what is plain as day, if you are born a citizen of the USA you are natural born. That’s it. Nothing else matters.

          Unless, of course, you were born in Hollywood. In that case I am for deportment back to that nutter city…

Ah, the rule of law approach. I remember that.

I expect huge numbers of illegals would go home if they found that the geyser of welfare benefits had dried up.

I think the fact that Cruz would sit down and be civil with this bottom feeding snake shows the kind of man he is and how confident he is in the Constitution. He has argued before SCOTUS and knows the law a lot better than Trump or Tapper. Where was Mr. Tapper when obama was running for office? The double standard exists today as it always has.

    You probably didn’t want a literal answer to that, but Mr. Tapper was working hard for ABC News covering topics ranging from the “second” Gulf War/ postwar US occupation, the New Orleans disaster, and politics. He’s probably better known for his work that began after Obama was inaugurated when he became an award-winning senior White House correspondent. He remains a pretty professional guy by the standards out there.

    Though, I’m mystified by your referring to him and Trump in the same sentence.

What is this broad authority of which the poster speaks? I thought the US has a backlog of over two million people or so of people who have had their day before a judge, been rejected for asylum or what not, been ordered to leave the country, and nothing happens. In what world is finding and deporting such people “broad authority to round people up” ?

I like reasonable solutions in general. Then I hear something like this and start wondering about the general state of education in the Western world.

    Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | January 11, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    How exactly do you find these people without a force that has such broad authority? That is what Trump is proposing, and it’s fundamentally un-American.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | January 11, 2016 at 5:30 pm

      …if you don’t count the Wilson and FDR years, yah.

      The whole point of my rebuttal is that I don’t concede the premise. The power to deport someone for whom a deportation order has been signed by an immigration judge is not acting on broad authority; it’s acting on narrow authority in strict accordance with the law, with every flaming hoop deftly jumped through. You might as well be asking, how do the police find fugitives? How do the police find people for whom there are outstanding arrest warrants? A lot could be done without any kind of increase in manpower at all just through permitting federal officers to do their jobs properly.

      Whatever the merits of a special immigration task force, I doubt either party would permit such a measure to pass Congress.

Time to pass some new laws to enforce existing laws.

This is why Ted Cruz is the only choice for real conservatives.

We already have a Deportation Force, formally known as ICE.

But since it was Trump who mentioned a deportation force….

Enforce the laws we already have….that would go a long way toward solving our “gun violence” problem, too.

It’s called “broken windows enforcement.” It works in many contexts.

It’s tragic that this is even remotely controversial. People who entered the US illegally can’t stay.

Any qualifications, hesitations or clarifications of the previous statement disqualify you from becoming president – or dog catcher for that matter.

The door to door question is a liberal media straw man question. Neither Trump nor Cruz have ever suggested such a thing. If one wants to know what Trump is thinking on this then look to his words. Trump points to how Eisenhower used police and the military to deport 50,000 illegals and that as a result another 400,000 self deported. And all this was done without going door to door and without creating a police state.

Trump has said he will start his deportations with the illegals who are gang members and criminals.

Trump will use everify and all the things Cruz talks about plus he will actively round up illegals who are gang members and criminals.

While Cruz has of late been copying Trump saying he will build a wall I do not trust Cruz to build the kind of real wall Trump will build. Nor do I trust Cruz to be nearly as forceful at deporting illegals and enforcing our laws as Trump. I also think Cruz will give out way too many H1B visas and increase not decrease legal immigration.

All other GOP candidates are much worse than Cruz. None are no where as good as Trump.

Don’t let the open borders leftist media and the their open borders supporters draw you down ridiculous police state and door to door straw man rabbit trails. We are more likely to need a police state to protect us from all the illegal criminals and terrorists they want to let in than from the government trying to enforce our laws and deport these criminals and terrorists.

TRUMP IS BY FAR BEST CANDIDATE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Cruz is a bit of a SLICK WILLY WEASEL WORD LAWYER trying to hide his real illegal alien policies and his real agenda to supersize H1B Visas.

    Latest poll out in Iowa shows Cruz down a net change to Trump of -5 points just as I predicted.

    Trump is now playing “Born in the USA” as his opening song at rallies (gotta love a guy with flair) ;-))

    Trump has only begun to hint at hitting Cruz on how he is slick willy weasel word lawyer johnny come lately to the Wall and fewer H1B visa party. Look for those hits to start in full force 7 to 10 days prior to 2/1/16 voting in Iowa. Those hits will be more troublesome for Cruz than his Canadian birth.

    Its gonna be interesting in Iowa over next couple of weeks.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 11, 2016 at 7:04 pm

      https://youtu.be/aonSgD7Hj0g

      Amnesty, thy name is T-rump.

      In his own words, just days ago.

      Don’t you feel used, butt boi?

        Obamatrade, thy name is Cruz, Rubio, McConnell and all the other globalist donor loving conservatives and GOPe types more than happy to vote on a 5500 page sell out of USA workers and sovereignty that they have never read and do not understand.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 11, 2016 at 7:30 pm

        Still cannot…CANNOT deal with reality, huh, butt-boi?

        And the truth, as you know, is that Cruz and Sessions killed Obamatrade as it stood.

        You lying SOS.

          Cruz wrote WSJ op ed why he loved the 5500 page obamatrade sell out deal he has never read. Then realizing he was on wrong side of grass roots and Trump voters did a 180 degree turn and needed some phony balony weasel lawyer way of getting out of his op ed. So he claims thatvit is too enmeshed in politics to support. He doesn’t say it is too bad of a deal to support or that is op ed was wrong and he has changed his mind. He just said he didn’t want to support it until the election is over.

          Cruz’s opposition to Obamatrade is just like his support for the Trump wall a weasely lawyer slick willy politician lie.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 11, 2016 at 9:38 pm

          Yeah, you lying sack of shit, we did this the other night.

          I’ll be happy to drag you through that knothole again, butt boi.

          Just keep chanting that lie, and I’ll let you have it.

          Not a lie. Just the facts. Just like your penchant for homophobic slurs is a fact.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 11, 2016 at 10:21 pm

          In your case, it isn’t a slur. It’s just an observation of your conduct.

          I see I taught you a new word: penchant. You suck SOOOOOO bad!

          Your writing clearly shows you are not a lawyer.

        I listened. I did not hear one single instance of “amnesty”. Trump says he wants people to come in “legally”. That means within existing immigration law. How do you get amnesty out of that?

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 11, 2016 at 8:18 pm

          As usual, Barry, you’re full of…apologia, shall we say.

          T-rump has been calling for “touch-back” amnesty for some time.

          We’ve been telling you this was the case for some time.

          You CAN’T have “touch-back” amnesty under current law. As you’ve been told repeatedly.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | January 11, 2016 at 8:31 pm

          OK, you always make that claim. Show me where he has said or written anything in support of “touchback amnesty”. That is a specific term for specific legislation, or do you mean something else?

          There is no apology to pointing out trumps actual words rather than your deceptive description. It is as simple as that.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 11, 2016 at 8:58 pm

          YEAH, Capt. Density, that IS a specific term, and you’ve had your nose rubbed in it MANY times!

          NOW, AGAIN, you’ve heard T-rump rhapsodize about bringing in LOTS of people…MARVELOUS people…who HE will bring in legally.

          Just how stupid are you? Seriously.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C2C3hRJ01E

          Barry in reply to Barry. | January 12, 2016 at 12:50 am

          “Show me where he has said or written anything in support of “touchback amnesty”.”

          As I thought, you can’t do it. Which makes your statement a lie.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 12, 2016 at 9:14 am

          Ah! So, when T-rump talks about an AMNESTY program, but never uses the “A word”, you’re so stupid that you’ll let that pass, and call ME the liar.

          When was the last time you had any integrity?

          Barry in reply to Barry. | January 13, 2016 at 12:29 am

          “…you’re so stupid that you’ll let that pass, and call ME the liar.”

          Intelligence and truthfullness are not displayed by you with anything respecting Trump. That is a fact. Trump has no positions you do not twist to fit your fantasy world.

          I can’t read his mind. Nor can you. He said what he said. Nowhere does he support “amnesty” or “touchback amnesty”. He says quite clearly that those deported can come back legally. LEGALLY. We do have an immigration system.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 11, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    As Donald Trump fans the flames of constitutional idiocy regarding Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility, there’s an idea that keeps creeping into the coverage of Trump’s disingenuous smear. Conservatives and Republicans — even Trump — should squelch it now. And that is this: the actual meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause is not clear, or even known, because the Supreme Court has not ruled on it yet.

    This know-nothing notion pushed by Trump and his Leftist tools in the obsolete media would have you believe that the words of the Constitution lack meaning altogether, until they receive it from the Court from time to time. In other words, you are stripped of constitutional protections, and lay naked before the whims of the imperial Court.
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/1/11/trump-and-his-tools-should-stop-saying-this-about-constitutions-natural-born-citizen-clause

    Read the whole thing (Britt’s excused…for obvious reasons).

    Now Ott is a conservative, contra Bierhall Britt, who hasn’t a conservative notion in his crap-packed skull.

      Cruz is a natural born citizen IMO. Period.

      Trump is using the question for his own benefit. Period.

      PJ media are a bunch (with a very few exceptions) of statist hacks. The constitution did not define natural born in any way (as I know you are aware). Pretending there is no question that needs to be resolved is just as bad as pretending that under the law when cruz was born that there is a question.

      A pox on both.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 11, 2016 at 8:28 pm

        Nice circular “reasoning” there, Barry. Crap…!!!

        And you’re an idiot WRT PJMedia, who are people who’ve done more for conservative government than you EVER could. Proving that its easy to be a worthless naysayer and slime others.

          PJ media is what it is. Just as I said. Long before trump ever hit the scene. Along with hacks like George Will, Krauthammer, etc. There is no shortage of them. They are all in it for their selves. As I said, there are a few exceptions, just not very many.

Hey Fuzzy Slippers, whose jackboots are these? Who sent them?

http://imgur.com/CcGmtBF

http://imgur.com/Mh11Lm9

http://imgur.com/YCaNO7j

DINORightMarie | January 11, 2016 at 11:21 pm

Wow. The Trump Trolls are out en masse.

On here. On Breitbart. On many other sites.

Trumpsters are getting to be a lot like leftie pajama-boy trolls…..or are they one and the same?

Nothing Ted Cruz has said in this is controversial,nor does it suggest he supports amnesty in any way. Nothing he’s said is different in any way than what he’s been saying since BEFORE he decided to run for the presidency.

Cruz is 100% right!! We do NOT go door to door, like jack-booted Stasi or NKVD and raid homes, taking people out, and rounding them up! It is absurd to even thing this – or that ICE or the Border Patrol DO THIS, or SHOULD do this!!! It is entirely unconstitutional to do so! The 4th amendment, for one, is clear on this!! Give it a rest, Trump-Trolls!

These Trumpsters – lunatics and fringe, puerile trolls who support Trump – are quite disturbing; their inability to discuss facts, accept Trump’s own words and flip-flops on many issues, and their insistence on attacking from the left with nonsense is very sad and quite telling.

They are no Conservatives. They are celebrity-loving, cult of personality following, attention-seeking drones.

We’ve just had to survive 8 years of their ilk…… We need to prevent having another narcissist in the White House – whether Dem or Repub (or at least claiming to be of these parties). Our nation needs a statesman we can trust, who has fought and won battles to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, who knows the Constitution inside and out.

The only man or woman who fits this description who is running today is Ted Cruz.

[And, yes, he’s a natural born citizen. A citizen at birth. As the framers and early laws, as well as British Common Law establish. This “birther” nonsense is settled; only a desperate loser would continue to pound on this dead horse.]

Proof that Cruz is a natural born citizen from Breitbart http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/11/ted-cruz-eligible-second-amendment
This article uses the recent interpretation of the original language of the second amendment meaning of militia to explain the term natural born and was very useful in explaining the meaning at the time. Trump should no longer be considered an honorable candidate if he ever was. I will not vote for him.

“What will Cruz do with illegals already in the US?”
Whatever his donors tell him to do.

    Bingo we have a winner.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 12, 2016 at 11:40 am

      Cruz has the people behind him.

      T-rump sold out to the BIG CORN lobby for a few Iowa votes.

      THAT’S pathetic, and a type of what you can expect from Mr. Establishment.

        We are talking immigration not corn. Try to stay on topic.

        Cruz trades more illegals to pick corn for 20% reduction in ethanol subsidies.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 12, 2016 at 12:30 pm

          More lies, as anyone can see.

          Buch intimated that Cruz would be “bought” by donors.

          I pointed out that T-rump HAS sold out for a pitiful few Iowa votes. He’ll behave in like form as Mr. Establishment, you lying POS cultist.

          Just like he’s doing with his LEFTIST attacks on Cruz.

Opinions
Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president

Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.

“Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html?tid=sm_tw

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 12, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    McManamon’s quotation from Blackstone’s Commentaries purposefully omits key language. Specifically, Blackstone stated:

    Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance [sic] or as is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and alien such as are born out of it.

    The key to this passage is the concept of “allegiance”–whether the individual has been born with allegiance to the king, or not. Individuals born with allegiance to the sovereign are ”natural-born” subjects; those lacking such allegiance are not. It is not, as McManamon implies from her selective portion, a question merely of being born within the geographic confines of the country. McManamon’s citation to the James Madison passage confirms this, as Madison acknowledges that “place is the most certain criterion,” but he is not suggesting that it is the only criterion, as he states unequivocally that the “established maxim” is that the ultimate criterion is “allegiance,” of which the place of birth is but one (albeit “certain”) criterion.

    Article I, section eight gives Congress the authority to “establish a uniform rule of Naturalization,” and thus identify, by statute, those who must to go through a naturalization process to obtain U.S. citizenship. Those citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process are “natural born” citizens. As former Solicitors General Neil Katyal and Paul Clement have recently noted in the Harvard Law Review Forum,

    All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States. . . .

    The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

    McManamon asserts that Katyal and Clement behave in an “unforgivable” fashion by “equat[ing] the common law with statutory law.” But they do no such thing. Instead, Katyal and Clement correctly note that the longstanding British legal understanding–as evidenced both by its common and statutory law–was that children born abroad to British subjects were, themselves, “natural born” subjects at birth, without the need for naturalization proceedings. As Randy Barnett succinctly put it,

    England had numerous and changing legal rules governing exactly who was and who was not a “natural born subject,” which can be used to muddy the waters. But one consistently applied rule is particularly germane: The offspring of the King were natural born subjects of the King regardless of where they were born, whether on English territory or not.

    As We the People–both individually and collectively–posses the sovereignty in the U.S., our offspring are the functional equivalent of he King’s offspring in England–i.e., “natural born” citizens of the U.S., regardless of where they are born.

    Indeed, by the time of Blackstone’s Commentaries (published beginning in 1765), Blackstone himself acknowledged that the law of England had evolved to recognize “that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [sic] whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception.”

    McManamon also criticizes Katyal and Clement for placing “much weight” on the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”

    Assuming that modern Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence would not permit any constitutional distinction of children based upon fathers versus mothers who are U.S. citizens (Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen at his birth; his father was not)–and there is no legal reason, today, to think that a mother who is a U.S. citizen owes less “allegiance” to the U.S. than would the father–the law existing at the time of the U.S. founding suggests that, in interpreting Article II’s phrase “natural born citizen,” children born abroad to U.S. citizens should be considered “natural born.”

    McManamon dismisses this evidence of the founding generation’s understanding of “natural born” by asserting:

    The debates on the matter reveal that the congressmen were aware that such children were not citizens and had to be naturalized; hence, Congress enacted a statute to provide for them. Moreover, that statute did not say the children were natural born, but only that they should “be considered as” such.

    This is specious argument. The 1790 Act reveals that the members of Congress–many of whom were heavily involved in the writing and ratification of the Constitution–understood that children of U.S. citizens who were born abroad should be “considered” as “natural born” in the sense that they did not need to undergo any naturalization process and were accordingly legally entitled to be considered U.S. citizens at the time of their birth–the same as an individual born within U.S. borders. The fact that Congress memorialized this common understanding in the 1790 Act does not, in any way, suggest that such children born abroad “had to be naturalized”; quite the contrary.

    In short, while Trump and Harvard Law prof Laurence Tribe are correct that the U.S. Supreme Court has not definitively grappled with the full meaning of “natural born citizen,” the available evidence suggests that if/when the Court ultimately must grapple with it, the evidence points strongly in Cruz’s favor.
    92
    Posted at 4:01 pm by Elizabeth Price Foley

    Opinions…like assholes…

      Yes there is more than one opinion on this.. That is Trump’s point. It is not settled law and tge democrats will sue over this. That is all he has said.

      Article I, section eight gives Congress the authority to “establish a uniform rule of Naturalization,

      Yep and without a natyralization act foreign born to citizen do not become citizens of any k8nd. Why? Because where one is born is the preminent concern not allegiance. The founders understood place of birth was most important factor in determining allegiance. So born on USA soil to citizen parent equals natural born citizen. All others gain citizenship through the naturalization act. The type of cit I zenship is specif I ed by the act and it isn’t natural born citizenship it us naturalized citizenship at birth.

      So I agree with you there are more than one opinion on this just like Trump says and which opinion is the correct one his an open question jist like Trump says.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 13, 2016 at 7:22 am

        No, lying SOS, your lying sleaze-ball has been attacking Cruz from the Left.

        AND, as Andy McCarthy and many others have noted about the “threat” of a lawsuit, “so what?”.

        They haven’t seemed to impede Obama, have they liar?

          If the issue and lawsuits threats of lawsuits drives down Cryz votes in primary which it has it will certainly have even bigger effect in general election. Cruz who is likely unelectable in general can’t afford to lose votes on this issue.

          We need to win primary and then win the general election. Trump can win Cruz is highly doubtful.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 13, 2016 at 12:23 pm

          No, lying SOS, your lying sleaze-ball has been attacking Cruz from the Left.

          AND, as Andy McCarthy and many others have noted about the “threat” of a lawsuit, “so what?”.

          They haven’t seemed to impede Obama, have they liar?

          Obama had the benefit of running against McCain a GOPe loser, and doing so in 2008 after Bush destroyed the GOP. The GOP nominee won’t have that benefit and has to prevail against lying democrats the lying DC media and win enough independents to get elected. Cruz doesn’t have that crossover appeal. Trump does. Cruz can’t win general election and Trump can.

          Obama was also our first affirmative action president. Unqualified, but hired anyway.

          Apples and oranges Rags. This election is not 2008.

          The Iowa polls clearly show this issue has hurt Cruz. 15% of republican voters in Iowa find it is a problem. If 15% of republican primary voters find it is a problem then 30% of independents will find it is a problem.

          So to Andy McCarthy and the many others you claim to say “so what”. That’s so what. If it hurts Cruz in republican primary which polls show it does, then it will hurt even more in the general election. That’s so what.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 13, 2016 at 2:09 pm

          You’re eyes must be brown, you’re so full of shit.

          Bloomberg poll out today confirms Cruz has lost 6% in Iowa. Just as I predicted. These issues have hurt him. Cruz still has 3% lead in new Bloomberg poll but its within the margin of error. Trump has taken Iowa lead in 2 other recent polls and the RCP average has them tied basically.

          Also of note today, many, including Nate Silver over at 538 blog, have made a big point that the betting sites are better predictors than polls about who will win nomination and general election. Today at Betfair for the first time Trump is the favored candidate to win the nomination with 34%. Cruz is third at 22% and the loser Rubio is second in between those two.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 13, 2016 at 5:04 pm

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/poll-views-of-trump-carson-and-bush-dim-as-christie-and-cruz-rise/

          T-rump slides as Cruz gains.

          And you are full of shit. You know it. And you like it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 13, 2016 at 5:28 pm

          Speaking of Nate Silver…

          https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/1/12/is-donald-trumps-support-a-media-bubble

          And…if you weren’t the asshole you are…you’d have learned about the betting pools from the John Stossel piece I posted the other day.

          But you are.

          Betfair says its no bubble, and old Nate is desperate to reassure himself that his constant predictions against Trump over the past 6 months will not turn out to be wrong and flush his reputation as super predictor analyst down the toilet.

          The argument that Trump’s media coverage that is over 60% negative according to media watchdog groups and the network analysts themselves is responsible for a bubble is just plain risible and silly. But like I said ‘ol Nate is desperate.

          Nate has used the old betting markets to allege they show Trump won’t win for months. Now the betting markets are moving to say Trump is most likely to win. What’s a predictor to do? Oh my.

          Betfair says Trump is odds on favorite to win nomination Cruz is only in third place on Betfair.

          Deal with it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 13, 2016 at 5:55 pm

          “…old Nate is desperate to reassure himself that his constant predictions against Trump…”

          Put up some links, liar.

          Why are you citing to “old desperate Nate” as an authority (a fallacy, stupid)?

          “The argument that Trump’s media coverage that is over 60% negative according to media watchdog groups and the network analysts…”

          Put up your links, liar.

          “Nate has used the old betting markets to allege they show Trump won’t win for months. Now the betting markets are moving to say Trump is most likely to win. What’s a predictor to do?”

          Report, you lying sack of shit. That’s all. Just report.

          Who does Betfair have for Iowa, butt boi?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 13, 2016 at 5:56 pm

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/poll-views-of-trump-carson-and-bush-dim-as-christie-and-cruz-rise/

          T-rump slides as Cruz gains.

          And you are full of shit. You know it. And you like it.

You are really spinning Rags. Your boy is lising in Iowa. He peaked too soon and after Iowa he doesn’t even come in 2nd. The more you know your guy is slipping the more you cuss nane call spit stomp your feet and act like an idiot with nothing to say of any intellectual merit. LOL.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend