Trump: Ted Cruz was an “anchor baby” in Canada and may not even be a U.S. citizen

posted at 4:01 pm on January 29, 2016 by Allahpundit

Via the Free Beacon, we’ve reached the stage of Trumpmania where the same media that used to routinely predict that every new Trump “gaffe” would finish him off now heralds everything Trump does as carefully calculated Machiavellian genius. Trump has convinced them to their bones, not without reason, that everything they thought they knew about presidential politics is wrong and every move he makes is right. Case in point: Skipping the debate four days before Iowans caucus is genius. Why? Because Trump’s a genius and he thinks it’s a good idea, even though there are lots of really obvious perils in a move like that. Same goes for this attack on Cruz, I assume. Suggesting that Cruz isn’t a U.S. citizen at all because he wasn’t born here is genius. Why? Well, Trump thinks it’s genius, and he has had success in driving Cruz’s favorable numbers down in Iowa this month by questioning his eligibility. Case closed, right?

Let’s think strategically. Assume you’re Trump and you’ve just won Iowa. Who are you worried about now? Answer: Whoever looks to be the strongest center-right contender in New Hampshire. That’s probably Marco Rubio, especially if he finishes strong in Iowa, which he may well do. The special danger that Rubio poses, not just to Trump but to everyone, is that he can pull from both sides of the field as others drop out. Some conservatives will never support him because of amnesty, but some will. And plenty of moderates will. If Trump is headed for a two-man race with Rubio then he should be thinking already about how to lure Cruz’s voters, some of whom are open to Trump because he’s a populist but some of whom are open to Rubio because he’s more conservative than Trump is. Trump should want to do everything he can to tear down Cruz at this point by attacking his record without doing something that angers persuadable Cruz fans so much that they opt for Rubio over Trump out of spite if forced to choose. (Cruz doesn’t have the same problem with Trump fans. None of them are going to Rubio if the race comes down to Rubio and Cruz, so even if Cruz alienates them, the worst thing they’ll do to him is stay home.)

Accusing Cruz of being an “anchor baby” in Canada and of possibly not even being a U.S. citizen is, I think, the sort of attack that’ll alienate Cruz voters more than garden-variety stuff like “Cruz doesn’t play well with others.” It’s dirty pool in a way that attacks on his record in the Senate aren’t. What Trump’s doing here is suggesting that the “natural-born” clause in Article II isn’t just a qualification for the presidency but a bright-line rule for citizenship generally. If you were born on U.S. soil, Trump’s hinting, you’re a citizen. If you weren’t, and weren’t later naturalized, you aren’t. That’s not true, though: Congress sets the rules for citizenship, and there’s no question that Cruz qualified per the statute that was in effect when he was born in 1970. The only question is whether he can lawfully run for this office under the Constitution. By conflating those two ideas, citizenship and Article II eligibility, Trump’s basically accusing Cruz of being — ta da — an illegal immigrant. And not just an illegal immigrant, but an illegal immigrant in two different countries. That’s what the “anchor baby” business is all about: I’ve never read anything suggesting that Cruz’s parents were in Canada illegally when he was born and used his birth as a way to establish legal residency, but that’s what most people think of when they think of “anchor babies.” (An “anchor baby” could also be used by legal residents to extend their legal residency in a country.) “Anchor baby” is doubly stupid as applied to Cruz since his parents didn’t actually use him as a long-term anchor in Canada. They moved to the U.S., of which his mother is a citizen, when he was a toddler. Trump’s essentially down to arguing that not only is Cruz weak on amnesty, he is amnesty. If he ends up losing the caucuses and fades from the race, I wonder how it’ll sit with Cruz to think that Trump outmaneuvered him by questioning his loyalty to America and even his right to be here. Once upon a time, I thought he’d endorse Trump if he dropped out as part of a broad populist offensive against “the establishment.” Now I wonder.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

Rubio, Trump, Schumer, McCain, Graham, Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Ryan, Gillibrand, Huckabee, Santorum, Christie, Kasich, and Bush all supported the RUBIO/SCHUMER GANG OF EIGHT AMNESTY Bill…..I’m glad TED CRUZ fought hard against and defeated it. TED CRUZ called them all out on their rhetoric and they got angry and finally folded.

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 4:21 PM

I really like trump’s putinsim, but he lacks any experience in politics, i hope the race comes down to cruz and rubio

snoopicus on January 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM

I’m a Donald J. Trump supporter, so will have to disagree with your “hopes”, LOL

I read somewhere that Trump is not a politician, but he’s no stranger to politics.

All of the politicians that are running have done nothing but further policies to destroy this Country.

It’s much easier for Cruz/Rubio/Jebbie and the rest of those running to nit pick at Donald J. Trump, rather than defending their votes & positions. No thanks is my reply. If the definition of Conservatism is enacting the Obama Agenda for 8 years, then I want nothing to do with any of them.

Hope you change your mind for the sake of this Country.

If you’re interested in truth and documentation, go to theconservativetreehouse.com

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 4:27 PM

Rubio, Trump, Schumer, McCain, Graham, Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Ryan, Gillibrand, Huckabee, Santorum, Christie, Kasich, and Bush all supported the RUBIO/SCHUMER GANG OF EIGHT AMNESTY Bill…..I’m glad TED CRUZ fought hard against and defeated it. TED CRUZ called them all out on their rhetoric and they got angry and finally folded.

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 4:21 PM

You need to keep up. Cruz did nothing.

Gang of Eight Bill Passes Senate 68-32

http://immigrationreform.com/2013/06/27/gang-of-eight-bill-passes-senate-68-32/

You are 2.5 years behind!

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 4:35 PM

You need to keep up. Cruz did nothing.

Gang of Eight Bill Passes Senate 68-32

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 4:35 PM

This is how you refute Session’s comment that Cruz was instrumental in stopping the Gang of Rubio amnesty bill? This carries more weight than what Sessions and King are saying and doing with respect to Cruz?

Laughable and I’m being kind.

voiceofreason on January 30, 2016 at 4:55 PM

The GANG OF EIGHT Bill didn’t pass the House……BUT THEY SURE TRIED to get it to…..But thanks to Americans like TED CRUZ IT DID NOT!!!!

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 5:04 PM

Trump supports SINGLE PAYER Health Care and he wants we American Taxpayers to PAY FOR IT!!!!

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 5:05 PM

We here in California have seen what a disaster ARNOLD was as Governor…..we’ve seen the TV STAR garbage before….Trump is no different

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 5:14 PM

Trump is nothing but a snotty LIBERAL RICH KID…..

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 5:15 PM

Trump is nothing but a snotty LIBERAL RICH KID…..

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 5:15 PM

What … is a “real democrat”?

darwin on January 30, 2016 at 5:21 PM

Watch RAND PAUL run from Illegal Alien

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 6:03 PM

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 6:03 PM

You need to fix the link…

voiceofreason on January 30, 2016 at 6:11 PM

Rand Paul again

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 6:11 PM

Lime in the Coconut on January 30, 2016 at 5:54 PM

He’s the neighborhood bully. Everything is broken.

/If you’re gonna riff off Dylan Thomas…

Christien on January 30, 2016 at 6:14 PM

Weird Al – Canadian Idiot

Dare To BE Stupid

Christien on January 30, 2016 at 6:22 PM

Lime in the Coconut on January 30, 2016 at 5:54 PM

He’s the neighborhood bully. Everything is broken.

/If you’re gonna riff off Dylan Thomas…

Christien on January 30, 2016 at 6:14 PM

I think you meant Bob Dylan.

Dylan Thomas, the writer and poet, died 63 years ago.

Anway, Gerry Rafferty and Joe Egan wrote the song in 1971 and released it on their 1972 album, Stealers Wheel’s.

Allegedly, Rafferty and Egan wrote the song as a riff on Bob Dylan’s musical style and paranoia.

Lime in the Coconut on January 30, 2016 at 6:41 PM

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 4:35 PM

This is how you refute Session’s comment that Cruz was instrumental in stopping the Gang of Rubio amnesty bill? This carries more weight than what Sessions and King are saying and doing with respect to Cruz?

Laughable and I’m being kind.

voiceofreason on January 30, 2016 at 4:55 PM

Gang of Eight Bill Passes Senate 68-32

http://immigrationreform.com/2013/06/27/gang-of-eight-bill-passes-senate-68-32/

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 7:53 PM

Lime in the Coconut on January 30, 2016 at 6:41 PM

Of course, I did, but I deliberately said DT, to afford you another opportunity to put me some knowledge. I helped the people who run the annual Dylan Bday gig in L.A. “go electric.” Maybe check it out sometime, if you’re a big Dylan fan and are in the area.

Christien on January 30, 2016 at 8:01 PM

The GANG OF EIGHT Bill didn’t pass the House……BUT THEY SURE TRIED to get it to…..But thanks to Americans like TED CRUZ IT DID NOT!!!!

Realdemocrat1 on January 30, 2016 at 5:04 PM

ROFL, a waste of my time since you are so mis-informed.

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 8:29 PM

1973 IIRC. This would mean that Cruzs mother could have been a citizen and voted in the 1974 Canadian elections. This would account for why they both show up on them.

sharrukin on January 30, 2016 at 3:09 AM

Appreciate your input. It’s difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion about this situation, since we have some facts only. If Senator Ted Cruz would provide what we don’t have, that would be helpful. Of course, I can understand if he has something to hide, then that would be the reason.

He was very deceptive about his loans and lied to the voters of Texas, so I don’t trust him in the least. Another Establishment politician.

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 9:06 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_real_ted_cruz.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.Vqacc-tvGQc.facebook

Excerpts from American Thinker:

In my own experience, I found Ted to be very easy to work with. I never knew him to tout his own résumé, talk down to anyone, or insist on deference to his position. To the contrary, I knew him to be consistently pleasant, generous with his time, and most importantly, always respectful of others’ views and work-product. I remember, for example, that Ted often dropped into my office to follow up on some comment or idea that I had offered during an earlier task force meeting. Those meetings generally permitted only limited discussion because of the number of people present, and Ted wanted to explore my thinking further. Unlike many persons holding titles in government, it never occurred to Ted that, because of his higher position as head of the task force, protocol would demand that I be called into his office. Such ego-driven attachment to hierarchy never mattered to Ted. To the contrary, he was only interested in getting the best ideas out of the people around him. All in all, I cannot recall a single instance when I did not enjoy interacting with Ted professionally. He not only displayed a consistent winning temperament throughout the time we were together, but did so in a way that drew out the highest quality of professional thinking from those with whom he worked and supervised.

Elisa on January 30, 2016 at 9:46 PM

Just wanted to say you’ve done a great job (as usual) countering these false statements about various topics on this thread. Great organization of facts and figures on your part. I wish my info was more organized:-)

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM

Thanks. I don’t really know much about the loan situation so I defer to others on this, like you, Joseph K, et al.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 9:50 PM

Criminals & #Socialists To The Left Of Me; #TrumpsterDivers To The Right…Here, I Am Stuck In The Middle Of Mendacity And Mediocrity With (Some of) You

Lime in the Coconut on January 30, 2016 at 5:54 PM

WOW. You are one nasty, insecure piece of work aren’t you?

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 9:55 PM

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM

Thanks. I don’t really know much about the loan situation so I defer to others on this, like you, Joseph K, et al.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 9:50 PM

It would be easier if everyone had the correct information and we could discuss various points of disagreements. Guess that’s too much to ask:-)

We can do our best though.

TY

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 10:31 PM

It would be easier if everyone had the correct information and we could discuss various points of disagreements. Guess that’s too much to ask:-)

We can do our best though.

TY

bluefox on January 30, 2016 at 10:31 PM

It would be. :)

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 11:15 PM

Cruz’s father was not a Canadian citizen until later.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 30, 2016 at 2:52 AM

1973 IIRC. This would mean that Cruzs mother could have been a citizen and voted in the 1974 Canadian elections. This would account for why they both show up on them.

sharrukin on January 30, 2016 at 3:09 AM

While you’re playing around with hypotheticals and suppositions based on obviously faulty information, you’re slipping right past the indisputable: Cruz’s mother was not a Canadian citizen at the time Cruz was born.

There’s also no evidence she was ever a Canadian citizen, but that doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. She was an American citizen at the time Cruz was born, making him an American citizen.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 30, 2016 at 11:28 PM

Thanks for confirming that Trump believes in single payer. If he really thought it could have worked then, it proves that he hasn’t changed his mind at all. Do you really want to elect a president who may decide to “repeal and replace” Obamacare with … nationalized healthcare?

So the president rules by fiat?

Trump seems to think so.

I am not talking about what he believes. You stated he was going to decide to “repeal and replace” Obamacare with nationalized healthcare.

I want to know how he is going to do that.

Do you think he is going to deem it repealed?

I think you’re trying to have it both ways. Every boast Trump makes about what he’s going to do, you treat as Gospel, ignoring the fact that he has no power to bypass Congress. Let someone mention something negative Trump wants, and now you want to argue that he can’t do it all by himself.

Sure, we could try to go down the list of Trump promises and measure each one by likelihood of accomplishment. But you don’t take such a skeptical view of Trump’s promises when he breezily promises to stick a huge tariff on China, or deport all illegals — right before letting them all come back in, or course — or block Muslim immigration.

Now, if you really want to play this game, how much support do you think Trump would have from the Democrats if he decided to do just what I suggested: replace Obamacare with true nationalized medicine. Bear in mind that the Democrats wanted this so badly that it was the first thing they tried to pass when they got a Democratic president in both 1992 and 2008.

And you’re wanting to put in a Republican president who wants to give the Democrats exactly what they want.

Trump has been out there saying what he’ll do, generally without a hint that Congress might not go along with it. But now, you want to mock the idea that Trump can do what he says he will do.

No, I want to know why you think a president can simply deem something repealed?

I suppose he’ll do it the same way he’ll magically deport all illegals, put a tariff on China, make Mexico pay for the wall, and stop all Muslim immigration.

Tell me how he does all that, and I’ll tell you how he replaces Obamacare.

He’s advocated for buying insurance across state lines:

“What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state,” he said. “I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if I’m negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid.” Erasing those lines, he said, would result in “great plans.”

Sure, at one time.

CURRENT POSITION.

Not that it was original with him. That’s been suggested by a great many people as a better alternative than Obamacare — and before Obamacare was actually passed. It featured in the Republican alternative to Obamacare that was proposed way back when the Democrats had control of Congress.

So? So now the standard is that Trump needs to come up with a new novel way to fix the problem or it doesn’t count? That’s BS goalpost moving.

Now you’re creating a straw man. I just pointed out it was not original with him, and that he’s basically repeating what others have already said. You, on the other hand, are trying to make it sound like this was his only suggestion, when he also said he was going to come up with a government plan to provide universal healthcare for those who couldn’t afford insurance. Obviously, letting people buy insurance across state lines doesn’t magically make them all able to afford insurance.

But that’s irrelevant,

No it really isn’t.

And the next part you quote says why it’s irrelevant.

because Trump also said that he preferred single payer, and has claimed that he will create a system where the government pays for healthcare for those who can’t afford it.

It’s called Medicaid and Medicare.

If he’s talking about Medicaid and Medicare, which already exist, then why is he talking about creating a new program?

Which is exactly what jerseytaxpayer was admitting. And by saying that the only reason he wasn’t advocating for it now was because Obamacare was broken, he suggests that he hasn’t changed his mind at all.

No he’s not advocating for it now because it won’t work, like he stated.

Are you trying to be obtuse? He’s not advocating for it now, because he says it won’t work now. Because of Obamacare. Obviously, repealing Obamacare would remove it as an obstacle, and then he thinks single payer would work.

So any time he talks about replacing Obamacare now, he’s probably wanting to replace it with a nationalized health care system.

SO I ask you again, how is he going to do it?!

Again, I suppose he’ll do it the same way he’ll magically deport all illegals, put a tariff on China, make Mexico pay for the wall, and stop all Muslim immigration.

Tell me how he does all that, and I’ll tell you how he replaces Obamacare.

And his “universal healthcare” comments were basically the system we had before Obamacare.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 1:00 AM

We did not have “universal healthcare” before Obamacare.

We did, Medicare insured the elderly, Medicaid insured the poor. Hospitals were/are forced to treat everyone REGARDLESS OF THE ABILITY TO PAY.

Everyone had a right to universal healthcare due to Ronald Reagan.

No. EMTALA did not guarantee a right to universal healthcare except for emergency care. Hospitals had to provide emergency care, but they did not have to provide it for free, and they never had to do more than to stabilize the patient and send them somewhere else, usually a charity hospital or clinic. They could still send the patient a bill, they could still report the patient to bad credit if they didn’t pay the bill, they could still call them and try to collect. They just couldn’t withhold the emergency treatment until the patient paid.

You sound just like the Mittbots, who tried to defend Romney over Romneycare by claiming EMTALA had already created universal healthcare anyway.

That was the whole excuse given for passing Obamacare.

The whole excuse for passing Obamacare was to force insurance on the uninsured, to “reduce premiums,” and “stick it” to the insurance companies.

The big talking point during Obamacare was how many millions uninsured there were, and how they needed insurance. They claimed we needed Obamacare precisely because we didn’t have universal healthcare.

Maybe you mean to suggest his “universal healthcare” comments were about preferring that to Obamacare. But if so, then you have once again confirmed that Trump is a supporter of nationalized medicine.

So. is. every. other. candidate. up. there.

Who is talking about repealing Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the Indian Health Service?

Hogwash. You’re trying to claim we already have nationalized medicine by including VA and Indian Health Services, and then jump to claiming everyone supports nationalized medicine. All to pretend it’s no big deal if Trump does it.

I see why you spend so much time trying to defend Trump. It takes a lot of work to make him sound intellectually coherent and explain away all the times he’s staked out a position just like what the progressives want.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 30, 2016 at 2:21 AM

When you have to deal with so many people spreading misinformation and moving goalposts, yeah you spend a lot of time calling out their BS.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 3:41 AM

Seems to me you’re trying to shovel BS every time the truth about Trump comes up in conversation.

Just on this thread alone, we have Trump spreading misinformation that Cruz “may not be” an American citizen at all. That is BS, and what is yours and Trump’s role in it? Spreading it all around.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 12:10 AM

So no, she was not a Canadian citizen. This is false information. It gets repeated by those who either don’t know any better, or just don’t care that they’re lying.

There is also no evidence that she ever became a Canadian citizen, but she certainly was not at the time of Cruz’s birth.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 30, 2016 at 12:30 AM

Do you have her immigration paperwork or visas handy? Because right now, nothing has been released.

There has been no evidence because Ted Cruz refuses to release any information on this. I am done with candidates playing games with Constitutional requirements.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 12:46 AM

I quoted the law, and it’s clear she didn’t meet the residency requirement.

How do you know? Do you have her visa application? Do you have access to her immigration paperwork? No you don’t. So the proposition that “it’s clear she didn’t meet the residency requirement” is predicated on a belief that a politician isn’t lying to you.

If she hadn’t been there five years, then she didn’t meet the residency requirement. If you want to claim she was a Canadian citizen, then you need to show how she met her 5-year residency requirement in 3 years. Wishful thinking doesn’t make it so.

The rest is just trying to plant seeds of doubt. You say you’re done with candidates playing games with Constitutional requirements. Yet here you are playing games with Constitutional requirements to hurt Cruz’s candidacy.

The constitution requires a natural born citizen, Cruz was born to a father who was violating his green card residency requirements and bribed and lied his way to get to the US, and he has clammed up on any information about his parents and when and what they were doing in Canada regarding their immigration status.

You really are a desperate liar. When you can’t prove your phony claim that Cruz’s mother might have been a Canadian citizen, you double down and make all kinds of accusations about his father and pretend there are all kinds of serious and unanswered questions. As if any of those “concerns” would change whether or not Cruz was a citizen.

If Trump really thinks Cruz is not a citizen, why doesn’t he sue him. He would actually have standing for such a lawsuit.

I hope he does. And takes down Marco Rubio with him.

He won’t. He’s had all this time to talk about it, and hasn’t shown the first inclination to do anything about it.

And you know why he doesn’t. It works more to his advantage to pretend there’s some question.

Well after Cruz’s latest antics in Iowa trying to tell voters to vote or he will let all their neighbors know should land him in jail for voter intimidation.

And now you try to change the subject to yet another made-up scandal.

In short, the candidate you support vociferously on this site is — how does that phrase go? — “playing games with Constitutional requirements.”

He fits those requirements, your boy is the one who is not a natural born citizen and like Obama, laughs off valid questions for their eligibility to be president.

I notice you tried to duck the ugly truth: Trump is the one “playing games” by pretending to be concerned whether Cruz is a natural born citizen. Except now he’s suggesting he may not be a citizen at all.

Hypocrite. You’re fine with Trump “playing games with Constitutional requirements,” but then act all huffy and accuse Cruz of “playing games with Constitutional requirements.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 30, 2016 at 2:31 AM

I love how you presume to know what I’m thinking. Trump SHOULD take the Canadian to court.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 3:51 AM

All I have to do is observe. You piously proclaimed that Cruz was “playing games with Constitutional requirements,” but don’t mind when Trump plays games.

Trump says, “You know, I hear Cruz may not be a natural born citizen. He should try to clear that up. After all, Democrats might try to sue him.” Shortly after, Trump starts playing “Born in the USA” at all his political rallies. Then he starts talking about it more and more. When Cruz defends himself, he starts saying that Cruz “is just a nasty guy that nobody likes.” And now he’s suggesting that Cruz may not even be a US citizen at all. And all this time, if Trump was really concerned about it, he was one of the few people in the world with standing to file a lawsuit against Cruz.

Anyone paying attention can see that Trump is trying to play on people’s doubts to cut down Cruz’s support. If he really thought there was an issue, he could file a lawsuit. He hasn’t, and he won’t, because he knows it will fail.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 12:30 AM

Oh, so now we’re back to talking about “natural born citizens.”

We never left.

That’s just dishonest. I quote from the topic, “may not even be a US citizen.” Not “may not be a natural born citizen,” but “may not even be a US citizen.”

So no, the topic was not about natural born citizens. Which I said in the very next sentence.

The topic was the suggestion that Cruz might not be a citizen at all.

That is also a possibility. Why does Cruz refuse to put this to rest? Why does he insist on hiding his parent’s immigration status? It looks guilty.

And it’s a possibility that you’re a paid staffer for Trump. If so, I hope you’re paid based on your prodigious quantity rather than the quality. Because “it’s a possibility” in the absence of any real evidence is just weak.

Here, I’ll help you out. I said, “Trying to suggest he might possibly not be a citizen is just grasping for straws.” I even bolded that part above, just in case you need to see it in context. And suggesting that he might not be a citizen at all is, as I said, hogwash.

Predicated on faith not facts.

If we’re going to talk about facts, where are yours?

But if you want to shift the ground to requirements for “natural born citizen,” we can talk about that. The question is, of course, the law. Someone’s feeling that Cruz should not be considered a natural born citizen is irrelevant. The question is, what does the law say?

And the Constitution does not define it. The only law that ever defined “natural born citizen” said that children born abroad to American parents were natural born citizens.

And that law also used the plural form for parents. It did not children born abroad to an American parent were natural born citizens.

That same law also used the plural form for children. So apparently you can only be a natural born citizens if you’re one of multiple children.

And the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to define natural born citizens only the power to naturalize them. Because a natural born citizen is born to two citizen parents.

The founders understood this, which is why during the naturalization act debate in Congress for the 1795 replacement, they spent so much time debating an amendment over noble titles. Because a noble coming to the US and marrying an American woman would have natural born citizen children here who could inherit his titles and lands.

The Constitution actually says that Congress can establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Implied in that is the ability to specify those who need no naturalization. It’s no mystery why virtually every act defining naturalization also defines who is a citizen at birth, and does not need to be naturalized.

The only way to apply a standard to all candidates is to rely on the law, and the only laws concerning citizenship define two categories: citizen by birth, and naturalized citizens. There is no third category.

If you have to point to statutory law you are not a natural born citizen.

A meaningless platitude. The Constitution doesn’t define natural born citizen. Congress defines the rules of naturalization, and that necessarily means they define the scope of who needs to be naturalized.

Otherwise illegal aliens having a child makes that kid eligible for the presidency.

Osama Bin Laden could have kidnapped an American woman, married her, sired a son in Afghanistan and raised him there, and he would be a natural born citizen of the US under your definition.

That’s insanity and pretzel logic.

If we’re going to create wild hypotheticals, Osama bin Laden could have crossed the Mexican border with a pregnant wife, waited for her to deliver, and then that child would be a born citizen of the US. All you’re really doing here is pointing out that if you determine citizenship by either birthplace or birth parents, you can always come up with some scenario where someone is born an American citizen who has no loyalty to the US.

But we’re not dealing with hare-brained hypotheticals here. The only question is, what does the law say? You may wish that being a natural born citizen required being the child of two American citizens born and raised in the US, but there is no law that defines it that way. Some would want the requirement to be that both parents and grandparents were born and raised in the US, but that’s not what the law says.

If you’re born a citizen, then you’re not a naturalized citizen. Naturalization is the process people go through to become citizens who were not already citizens. It’s pretty much that simple.

It is, which is why Cruz had to point to congressional law to make himself a citizen. Congress declared he was a citizen at birth. They cannot confer natural born citizenship status to someone because the Constitution does not vest them with that power.

The Constitution does not define what natural born citizen means. All your attempts to muddy the water come down to the question, what does the law say? Cruz was born a citizen, never naturalized. Congress did not naturalize him. Congress has defined a process of naturalization, but it did not apply to Cruz.

There is no law stating who is a natural born citizen because with a natural born citizen, there no question of dual allegiance to a foreign power. Their parents are citizens and they were born in the US.

Which is why no president was ever foreign born.

Another assertion without evidence. If the Constitution defined natural born citizen or gave a reference where it was defined, then you could argue that there was no role for Congress.

But then, these questions are raised just to cast a cloud over a political competitor, not because there’s a real question to be settled.

If Trump really believed Cruz was not eligible, he would file a suit.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 30, 2016 at 2:43 AM

There is a real question to be settled and Trump SHOULD file suit.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 4:19 AM

Trump won’t. Apparently, he either doesn’t believe there is a real question to be settled, or just doesn’t care about it like he claims to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 12:56 AM

I’ve never read anything suggesting that Cruz’s parents were in Canada illegally when he was born and used his birth as a way to establish legal residency, but that’s what most people think of when they think of “anchor babies.”

“Details have been emerging which highly suggest that both Ted Cruz’s parents had become Canadian citizens prior to his birth. According to past public statements made by his father, legal opinions and documentation currently available, Rafael (Ted) Cruz was likely born of 2 Canadian citizens in Calgary back in December of 1970.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/ted-cruz-must-show-naturalization-papers-to-keep-his-us-senate-seat

ezspirit on January 30, 2016 at 1:27 PM

From August 2015, five months ago, relying on information which has since been proven to be inaccurate.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 1:05 AM

Thanks for confirming that Trump believes in single payer. If he really thought it could have worked then, it proves that he hasn’t changed his mind at all. Do you really want to elect a president who may decide to “repeal and replace” Obamacare with … nationalized healthcare?

So the president rules by fiat?

Trump seems to think so.

I am not talking about what he believes. You stated he was going to decide to “repeal and replace” Obamacare with nationalized healthcare.

I want to know how he is going to do that.

Do you think he is going to deem it repealed?

I think you’re trying to have it both ways. Every boast Trump makes about what he’s going to do, you treat as Gospel, ignoring the fact that he has no power to bypass Congress. Let someone mention something negative Trump wants, and now you want to argue that he can’t do it all by himself.

YOU were the one arguing that:

Do you really want to elect a president who may decide to “repeal and replace” Obamacare with … nationalized healthcare?

And since republicans would not want to “nationalize healthcare,” then it is a moot point what he wants.

Sure, we could try to go down the list of Trump promises and measure each one by likelihood of accomplishment. But you don’t take such a skeptical view of Trump’s promises when he breezily promises to stick a huge tariff on China,

Which you are doing.

Please link where I “don’t take such a skeptical view of Trump’s promises to _____”

He can propose what he wants. You Cruz and Rubio et al supporters seem to think the President can rule by fiat.

or deport all illegals

The president is supposed to enforce the law. Currently it mandates deportation of illegal aliens.

I’m sorry that you don’t think they should.

— right before letting them all come back in,

BS. Back up that statement where he will be “letting them all come back in.”

or course — or block Muslim immigration.

No one has a right to immigrate here. The Constitution doesn’t apply to the entire world.

Now, if you really want to play this game, how much support do you think Trump would have from the Democrats if he decided to do just what I suggested: replace Obamacare with true nationalized medicine.

Trump is not for nationalized healthcare, he is for nationalized insurance in the way that you can purchase it across state lines.

Bear in mind that the Democrats wanted this so badly that it was the first thing they tried to pass when they got a Democratic president in both 1992 and 2008.

So? It has nothing to do with Trump.

And you’re wanting to put in a Republican president who wants to give the Democrats exactly what they want.

Nope.

No, I want to know why you think a president can simply deem something repealed?

I suppose he’ll do it the same way he’ll magically deport all illegals, put a tariff on China, make Mexico pay for the wall, and stop all Muslim immigration.

Dodge.

But it’s funny that you criticize Trump for the very problem you ignore with Cruz. That is some good hypocrisy there!

Trump uses existing law on immigration and will need to get legislation for the wall and the tariff (if he so chooses).

Tell me how he does all that, and I’ll tell you how he replaces Obamacare.

With Republicans in Congress. The same thing with Cruz.

Not that it was original with him. That’s been suggested by a great many people as a better alternative than Obamacare — and before Obamacare was actually passed. It featured in the Republican alternative to Obamacare that was proposed way back when the Democrats had control of Congress.

So? So now the standard is that Trump needs to come up with a new novel way to fix the problem or it doesn’t count? That’s BS goalpost moving.

Now you’re creating a straw man. I just pointed out it was not original with him, and that he’s basically repeating what others have already said.

You’re moving the goalposts hack, there is no point addressing the rest of your arguments until you decide to stop.

because Trump also said that he preferred single payer, and has claimed that he will create a system where the government pays for healthcare for those who can’t afford it.

It’s called Medicaid and Medicare.

If he’s talking about Medicaid and Medicare, which already exist, then why is he talking about creating a new program?

Of private medicine.

This is the quote for single payer people keep referring to from the first debate:

“No, but it’s certainly something that in certain countries works. It actually works incredibly well in Scotland. Some people think it really works in Canada. But not here, I don’t think it would work as well here. What has to happen — I like the concept of private enterprise coming in ….You have to create competition. And you have to go back to a system of private.”

So no, he doesn’t support it and there is no point debating single payer.

No he’s not advocating for it now because it won’t work, like he stated.

Are you trying to be obtuse? He’s not advocating for it now, because he says it won’t work now. Because of Obamacare. Obviously, repealing Obamacare would remove it as an obstacle, and then he thinks single payer would work.

So any time he talks about replacing Obamacare now, he’s probably wanting to replace it with a nationalized health care system.

And you completely made that whole line of reasoning up.

SO I ask you again, how is he going to do it?!

Again, I suppose he’ll do it the same way he’ll magically deport all illegals, put a tariff on China, make Mexico pay for the wall, and stop all Muslim immigration.

Tell me how he does all that, and I’ll tell you how he replaces Obamacare.

So again, you are fear mongering because you have no answer to it.

And his “universal healthcare” comments were basically the system we had before Obamacare.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 1:00 AM

We did not have “universal healthcare” before Obamacare.

We did, Medicare insured the elderly, Medicaid insured the poor. Hospitals were/are forced to treat everyone REGARDLESS OF THE ABILITY TO PAY.

Everyone had a right to universal healthcare due to Ronald Reagan.

No. EMTALA did not guarantee a right to universal healthcare except for emergency care.

So thanks for admitting that we do. And I have four people in my family who work in the medical field, including myself, and objective evidence who disagree with your interpretation.

They just couldn’t withhold the emergency treatment until the patient paid.

Universal healthcare.

You sound just like the Mittbots, who tried to defend Romney over Romneycare by claiming EMTALA had already created universal healthcare anyway.

I’m not defending Obamacare. I’m defending Trump’s comments from someone doing a hatchet job.

So when is Cruz going to repeal Medicare and Medicaid?

The whole excuse for passing Obamacare was to force insurance on the uninsured, to “reduce premiums,” and “stick it” to the insurance companies.

The big talking point during Obamacare was how many millions uninsured there were, and how they needed insurance. They claimed we needed Obamacare precisely because we didn’t have universal healthcare.

Obamacare ensures universal INSURANCE, not healthcare. We already have universal healthcare.

Maybe you mean to suggest his “universal healthcare” comments were about preferring that to Obamacare. But if so, then you have once again confirmed that Trump is a supporter of nationalized medicine.

So. is. every. other. candidate. up. there.

Who is talking about repealing Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the Indian Health Service?

Hogwash. You’re trying to claim we already have nationalized medicine by including VA and Indian Health Services, and then jump to claiming everyone supports nationalized medicine. All to pretend it’s no big deal if Trump does it.

I see you forgot Medicare and Medicaid. We do. Where is Cruz’s repeal bill for socialized medicine of Medicare and Medicaid?

I see why you spend so much time trying to defend Trump. It takes a lot of work to make him sound intellectually coherent and explain away all the times he’s staked out a position just like what the progressives want.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 30, 2016 at 2:21 AM

When you have to deal with so many people spreading misinformation and moving goalposts, yeah you spend a lot of time calling out their BS.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 3:41 AM

Seems to me you’re trying to shovel BS every time the truth about Trump comes up in conversation.

Just on this thread alone, we have Trump spreading misinformation that Cruz “may not be” an American citizen at all. That is BS, and what is yours and Trump’s role in it? Spreading it all around.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 12:10 AM

And in just this thread alone, we have you spreading BS that he is, except no one can see his records or his mothers because he refuses to show them.

Just like Obama.

NWConservative on January 31, 2016 at 1:22 AM

I quoted the law, and it’s clear she didn’t meet the residency requirement.

How do you know? Do you have her visa application? Do you have access to her immigration paperwork? No you don’t. So the proposition that “it’s clear she didn’t meet the residency requirement” is predicated on a belief that a politician isn’t lying to you.

If she hadn’t been there five years, then she didn’t meet the residency requirement. If you want to claim she was a Canadian citizen, then you need to show how she met her 5-year residency requirement in 3 years. Wishful thinking doesn’t make it so.

How can we when we can’t get any information because Cruz has sealed everything up and laughs it off.

The constitution requires a natural born citizen, Cruz was born to a father who was violating his green card residency requirements and bribed and lied his way to get to the US, and he has clammed up on any information about his parents and when and what they were doing in Canada regarding their immigration status.

You really are a desperate liar.

Says a guy who tells everyone that he knows beyond a doubt of his conclusions based on no concrete evidence.

When you can’t prove your phony claim that Cruz’s mother might have been a Canadian citizen, you double down and make all kinds of accusations about his father and pretend there are all kinds of serious and unanswered questions. As if any of those “concerns” would change whether or not Cruz was a citizen.

I was going by what his father stated. I’m sorry you can’t rebut it. Who knows how long they were actually in Canada because all we have is the word of a liar Cruz Sr.

If Trump really thinks Cruz is not a citizen, why doesn’t he sue him. He would actually have standing for such a lawsuit.

I hope he does. And takes down Marco Rubio with him.

He won’t. He’s had all this time to talk about it, and hasn’t shown the first inclination to do anything about it.

If he doesn’t, it would be a shame.

It still looks like it won’t matter anyways after tomorrow.

And you know why he doesn’t. It works more to his advantage to pretend there’s some question.

Well after Cruz’s latest antics in Iowa trying to tell voters to vote or he will let all their neighbors know should land him in jail for voter intimidation.

And now you try to change the subject to yet another made-up scandal.

A made up scandal confirmed by Ted Cruz.

He should take him to court, but Cruz is ensuring that his candidacy will be irrelevent very soon. If not in Iowa, then in NH and SC.

I love how you presume to know what I’m thinking. Trump SHOULD take the Canadian to court.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 3:51 AM

All I have to do is observe. You piously proclaimed that Cruz was “playing games with Constitutional requirements,” but don’t mind when Trump plays games.

Where did I say I don’t mind when Trump plays games? Link it.

Trump says, “You know, I hear Cruz may not be a natural born citizen. He should try to clear that up. After all, Democrats might try to sue him.” Shortly after, Trump starts playing “Born in the USA” at all his political rallies. Then he starts talking about it more and more. When Cruz defends himself, he starts saying that Cruz “is just a nasty guy that nobody likes.” And now he’s suggesting that Cruz may not even be a US citizen at all. And all this time, if Trump was really concerned about it, he was one of the few people in the world with standing to file a lawsuit against Cruz.

Anyone paying attention can see that Trump is trying to play on people’s doubts to cut down Cruz’s support. If he really thought there was an issue, he could file a lawsuit. He hasn’t, and he won’t, because he knows it will fail.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 12:30 AM

Cruz started attacking him first by questioning Donald Trump’s judgement to be President.

And you have no idea how a lawsuit challenging his eligibility for the presidency would go.

Secondly, I would love to see how you would deal with Jerry Brown and other democrat governors telling their democrat secretary of states to remove Ted Cruz’s line from their ballots due to him being ineligible.

NWConservative on January 31, 2016 at 1:40 AM

Oh, so now we’re back to talking about “natural born citizens.”

We never left.

That’s just dishonest. I quote from the topic, “may not even be a US citizen.” Not “may not be a natural born citizen,” but “may not even be a US citizen.”

He’s not a natural born citizen because he was not born of two citizen parents and on US soil.

As for the citizenship, you are speculating because you have the same information that everyone else has, NOTHING. Because of Ted Cruz.

That is also a possibility. Why does Cruz refuse to put this to rest? Why does he insist on hiding his parent’s immigration status? It looks guilty.

And it’s a possibility that you’re a paid staffer for Trump.

Non sequitor. But I wish I was paid to debate Cruz tru believers.

If so, I hope you’re paid based on your prodigious quantity rather than the quality. Because “it’s a possibility” in the absence of any real evidence is just weak.

He makes the assertion that he’s eligible. The burden of proof is on him. But the Cruz bootlickers would rather just call out “BIRTHER!!!!1!!!” and use faith as substitution for facts rather than actually discuss the issue.

Here, I’ll help you out. I said, “Trying to suggest he might possibly not be a citizen is just grasping for straws.” I even bolded that part above, just in case you need to see it in context. And suggesting that he might not be a citizen at all is, as I said, hogwash.

Predicated on faith not facts.

If we’re going to talk about facts, where are yours?

Neither one of us has the facts, but you predicate your certainty on faith. Cruz says he’s eligible, then present the facts, the documents, the immigration paperwork, etc.

He won’t. He casts a shadow of doubt by sealing his records. Yet here you are telling everyone to shut up because Ted Cruz, PBUH, is being completely honest … because … shut up.

And the Constitution does not define it. The only law that ever defined “natural born citizen” said that children born abroad to American parents were natural born citizens.

And that law also used the plural form for parents. It did not children born abroad to an American parent were natural born citizens.

That same law also used the plural form for children.

Yes but it is not possible for a parent to reproduce asexually.

And since we are quoting that law, women’s citizenship at the time of that law was conferred to her from her husband after marriage. So Ted Cruz would not be an American citizen, let alone an natural born citizen of the US.

Not to mention that it was repealed and replaced with referring to them as being only a citizens five years later by James Madison.

And the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to define natural born citizens only the power to naturalize them. Because a natural born citizen is born to two citizen parents.

The founders understood this, which is why during the naturalization act debate in Congress for the 1795 replacement, they spent so much time debating an amendment over noble titles. Because a noble coming to the US and marrying an American woman would have natural born citizen children here who could inherit his titles and lands.

The Constitution actually says that Congress can establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Exactly, they can only naturalize. Natural born implies that they do not need congressional authority to say they are citizens. Why is it that there is no federal statute conferring citizenship on children of two citizen parents born in the US?

The only way to apply a standard to all candidates is to rely on the law, and the only laws concerning citizenship define two categories: citizen by birth, and naturalized citizens. There is no third category.

If you have to point to statutory law you are not a natural born citizen.

A meaningless platitude.

Wrong.

The Constitution doesn’t define natural born citizen. Congress defines the rules of naturalization, and that necessarily means they define the scope of who needs to be naturalized.

Exactly. They only have authorization to establish a uniform rule to naturalize after the fact be it at birth or from application. They can establish native citizens and naturalized citizens, not natural born citizens.

They are not legally able to define a citizen born in the US to two citizen parents. Because it follows natural law and common sense.

Otherwise illegal aliens having a child makes that kid eligible for the presidency.

Osama Bin Laden could have kidnapped an American woman, married her, sired a son in Afghanistan and raised him there, and he would be a natural born citizen of the US under your definition.

That’s insanity and pretzel logic.

If we’re going to create wild hypotheticals, Osama bin Laden could have crossed the Mexican border with a pregnant wife, waited for her to deliver, and then that child would be a born citizen of the US.

Under your wild pretzel logic, yes.

If they were here legally, then the child would be a citizen under the 14th amendment, note that it does not state natural born citizen does it?

All you’re really doing here is pointing out that if you determine citizenship by either birthplace or birth parents, you can always come up with some scenario where someone is born an American citizen who has no loyalty to the US.

Which is why I state you need to have two citizen parents and be born here. Because in the vast, vast majority of situations, they will stay here.

But we’re not dealing with hare-brained hypotheticals here.

Made possible by your demand to dilute the requirements to be a natural born citizen.

The only question is, what does the law say? You may wish that being a natural born citizen required being the child of two American citizens born and raised in the US, but there is no law that defines it that way.

Because they are natural born citizens.

Some would want the requirement to be that both parents and grandparents were born and raised in the US, but that’s not what the law says.

That is not what anyone says. The law of nations and the founders wanted it to be two citizen parents and born on the soil or American property.

It is, which is why Cruz had to point to congressional law to make himself a citizen. Congress declared he was a citizen at birth. They cannot confer natural born citizenship status to someone because the Constitution does not vest them with that power.

The Constitution does not define what natural born citizen means. All your attempts to muddy the water come down to the question,

The only muddying of the water being done is by Cruz and you. It is crystal clear, every president has been a natural born citizen or exempted by the Constitution, except Obama and potentially Cruz.

Cruz was born a citizen, never naturalized.

If his mom didn’t become a Canadian citizen, sure based on current Congressional law.

Congress did not naturalize him.

They did because he wouldn’t be considered a citizen unless he was protected by statute. Hence he’s not a natural born citizen.

Congress has defined a process of naturalization, but it did not apply to Cruz.

Except the statute that stated he was a citizen.

There is no law stating who is a natural born citizen because with a natural born citizen, there no question of dual allegiance to a foreign power. Their parents are citizens and they were born in the US.

Which is why no president was ever foreign born.

Another assertion without evidence. If the Constitution defined natural born citizen or gave a reference where it was defined, then you could argue that there was no role for Congress.

It was common knowledge at the time. They never thought that they would have Ted Cruz and Barack Obama saying they were natural born citizens.

Just like they thought that the commerce clause wouldn’t be an IWIN card for the federal government or that the Bill of Rights wouldn’t be needed.

They didn’t think it was a question.

If Trump really believed Cruz was not eligible, he would file a suit.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 30, 2016 at 2:43 AM

There is a real question to be settled and Trump SHOULD file suit.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 4:19 AM

Trump won’t. Apparently, he either doesn’t believe there is a real question to be settled, or just doesn’t care about it like he claims to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 12:56 AM

Again, you have no idea. Just like you have no idea what the Democrats will do to Cruz if he were the nominee. No you and Ted Cruz would rather us head into a situation where the Democrats discover something about his mother rescinding her citizenship, or win a lawsuit against his eligibility, or remove him from the ballot, destroying the top of the ticket.

That’s stupid and reckless.

NWConservative on January 31, 2016 at 2:13 AM

Thanks for confirming that Trump believes in single payer. If he really thought it could have worked then, it proves that he hasn’t changed his mind at all. Do you really want to elect a president who may decide to “repeal and replace” Obamacare with … nationalized healthcare?

So the president rules by fiat?

Trump seems to think so.

I am not talking about what he believes. You stated he was going to decide to “repeal and replace” Obamacare with nationalized healthcare.

I want to know how he is going to do that.

Do you think he is going to deem it repealed?

I think you’re trying to have it both ways. Every boast Trump makes about what he’s going to do, you treat as Gospel, ignoring the fact that he has no power to bypass Congress. Let someone mention something negative Trump wants, and now you want to argue that he can’t do it all by himself.

YOU were the one arguing that:

Trump is the one arguing that.

Do you really want to elect a president who may decide to “repeal and replace” Obamacare with … nationalized healthcare?

And since republicans would not want to “nationalize healthcare,” then it is a moot point what he wants.

Ah, there’s a comfort. Trump may want nationalized medicine, but at least we can count on the Republicans to stand fast against it.

I’m sure every one of the Republicans will defy the leader of their party if he wants nationalized healthcare, even though it would only take a few crossing over to join the Democrats to get it passed.

Sure, we could try to go down the list of Trump promises and measure each one by likelihood of accomplishment. But you don’t take such a skeptical view of Trump’s promises when he breezily promises to stick a huge tariff on China,

Which you are doing.

Please link where I “don’t take such a skeptical view of Trump’s promises to _____”

He can propose what he wants. You Cruz and Rubio et al supporters seem to think the President can rule by fiat.

Sure, I can spend the whole weekend browsing through the last month’s worth of comments to see if any from you are not skeptical enough about Trump’s promises.

Or you could just post a few skeptical ones to prove your point.

On the subject of tariffs, you seem to be on board:

I think it is way past time to start putting up tariffs against third world economies, to stop creating incentives for our companies wanting to use their incredibly cheap labor in order to destroy their competition here who have been trying to make their goods in the US.

NWConservative on January 10, 2016 at 9:12 PM

I don’t note much in the way of skepticism. Nor would I normally, since we’re discussing what the man would want to do, usually on the assumption that he at least has a chance of getting it through Congress.

Until we get to this topic, apparently, where we feel free to assume it could never happen.

or deport all illegals

The president is supposed to enforce the law. Currently it mandates deportation of illegal aliens.

I’m sorry that you don’t think they should.

Deporting illegals is fine. Promising to deport all illegals is a lot easier said than done.

— right before letting them all come back in,

BS. Back up that statement where he will be “letting them all come back in.”

He’s said repeatedly that he would deport all illegals, and then let “the good ones” come back in. Frankly, I don’t think we know how big a group all “the good ones” will be, but it seems to be those who work and don’t commit crimes. Which sounds an awful lot to me like the very ones that are always on the verge of being offered amnesty.

or course — or block Muslim immigration.

No one has a right to immigrate here. The Constitution doesn’t apply to the entire world.

Never said it did. Don’t build another straw man. I’m just saying he talks about blocking Muslims based on religion, and it’s unlikely he can do any such thing. Yet his promise to block Muslim immigration is constantly being given as a reason to vote for him. And Cruz’s statement that blocking all Muslim immigration is not his policy is constantly given as a reason to not vote for Cruz. So clearly, his promise is being treated as if he can do just that.

Now, if you really want to play this game, how much support do you think Trump would have from the Democrats if he decided to do just what I suggested: replace Obamacare with true nationalized medicine.

Trump is not for nationalized healthcare, he is for nationalized insurance in the way that you can purchase it across state lines.

Unfortunately, that is not all he said.

Bear in mind that the Democrats wanted this so badly that it was the first thing they tried to pass when they got a Democratic president in both 1992 and 2008.

So? It has nothing to do with Trump.

The fact that Trump believes in single payer also just might have a little something to do with Trump.

And you’re wanting to put in a Republican president who wants to give the Democrats exactly what they want.

Nope.

Yep.

No, I want to know why you think a president can simply deem something repealed?

I suppose he’ll do it the same way he’ll magically deport all illegals, put a tariff on China, make Mexico pay for the wall, and stop all Muslim immigration.

Dodge.

Yes, your sudden eagerness to point out that not all Trump’s promises can be kept was a dodge.

But it’s funny that you criticize Trump for the very problem you ignore with Cruz. That is some good hypocrisy there!

Trump uses existing law on immigration and will need to get legislation for the wall and the tariff (if he so chooses).

I’m not the one who suddenly started pointing out that not everything a candidate says can be kept.

Tell me how he does all that, and I’ll tell you how he replaces Obamacare.

With Republicans in Congress. The same thing with Cruz.

And there we go. Candidates talk about what they want to do. We elect them at least partially on what they want to do, and whether we think they will carry through with it. That’s true of Trump, and it’s true of Cruz. At least, it’s true of Trump until someone points out that he seems to love the idea of nationalized medicine.

Not that it was original with him. That’s been suggested by a great many people as a better alternative than Obamacare — and before Obamacare was actually passed. It featured in the Republican alternative to Obamacare that was proposed way back when the Democrats had control of Congress.

So? So now the standard is that Trump needs to come up with a new novel way to fix the problem or it doesn’t count? That’s BS goalpost moving.

Now you’re creating a straw man. I just pointed out it was not original with him, and that he’s basically repeating what others have already said.

You’re moving the goalposts hack, there is no point addressing the rest of your arguments until you decide to stop.

Why are you taking offense at something that wasn’t even derogatory in the first place, but just a comment that Trump was saying the same thing that others had been saying for a long time? Possibly to avoid facing what else he had to say on the subject?

because Trump also said that he preferred single payer, and has claimed that he will create a system where the government pays for healthcare for those who can’t afford it.

It’s called Medicaid and Medicare.

If he’s talking about Medicaid and Medicare, which already exist, then why is he talking about creating a new program?

Of private medicine.

This is the quote for single payer people keep referring to from the first debate:

“No, but it’s certainly something that in certain countries works. It actually works incredibly well in Scotland. Some people think it really works in Canada. But not here, I don’t think it would work as well here. What has to happen — I like the concept of private enterprise coming in ….You have to create competition. And you have to go back to a system of private.”

So no, he doesn’t support it and there is no point debating single payer.

He also said, in a 60 Minutes interview, that the government would take care of everybody, including the uninsured, and that the government would pay for it.

His current promise is a very simplistic one, to let insurance plans cross state lines, and to somehow — he never quite makes clear how — provide healthcare to people who have no insurance. But it’s quite clear that he still thinks single payer is a great thing.

No he’s not advocating for it now because it won’t work, like he stated.

Are you trying to be obtuse? He’s not advocating for it now, because he says it won’t work now. Because of Obamacare. Obviously, repealing Obamacare would remove it as an obstacle, and then he thinks single payer would work.

So any time he talks about replacing Obamacare now, he’s probably wanting to replace it with a nationalized health care system.

And you completely made that whole line of reasoning up.

I didn’t make up Trump’s enthusiasm for nationalized medicine.

SO I ask you again, how is he going to do it?!

Again, I suppose he’ll do it the same way he’ll magically deport all illegals, put a tariff on China, make Mexico pay for the wall, and stop all Muslim immigration.

Tell me how he does all that, and I’ll tell you how he replaces Obamacare.

So again, you are fear mongering because you have no answer to it.

When you tell me how Trump will keep all his other promises…

And his “universal healthcare” comments were basically the system we had before Obamacare.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 1:00 AM

We did not have “universal healthcare” before Obamacare.

We did, Medicare insured the elderly, Medicaid insured the poor. Hospitals were/are forced to treat everyone REGARDLESS OF THE ABILITY TO PAY.

Everyone had a right to universal healthcare due to Ronald Reagan.

No. EMTALA did not guarantee a right to universal healthcare except for emergency care.

So thanks for admitting that we do. And I have four people in my family who work in the medical field, including myself, and objective evidence who disagree with your interpretation.

I’m quite familiar with EMTALA. The only thing it does is establish that, if a person comes to a hospital needing emergency care, the care has to be provided first, and payment arrangements have to be made after the fact. The patient still has to pay for medical care, and the medical care is limited to the emergency.

So it’s not universal, since elective treatment is not mandated. And it’s not socialized medicine, because EMTALA does not pay for the patient visits. The hospital can pursue the patient for collection with all the usual techniques, except the one option of refusing treatment until the pay is received.
They just couldn’t withhold the emergency treatment until the patient paid.

Universal healthcare.

You sound just like the Mittbots, who tried to defend Romney over Romneycare by claiming EMTALA had already created universal healthcare anyway.

I’m not defending Obamacare. I’m defending Trump’s comments from someone doing a hatchet job.

By claiming we had universal healthcare before Obamacare, which is a classic excuse offered by Mittbots.

So when is Cruz going to repeal Medicare and Medicaid?

You’re the one claiming it constitutes universal healthcare.

The whole excuse for passing Obamacare was to force insurance on the uninsured, to “reduce premiums,” and “stick it” to the insurance companies.

The big talking point during Obamacare was how many millions uninsured there were, and how they needed insurance. They claimed we needed Obamacare precisely because we didn’t have universal healthcare.

Obamacare ensures universal INSURANCE, not healthcare. We already have universal healthcare.

You’re determined to claim that we have universal healthcare now. Trump must not realize it, because he’s making promises of how to “take care” of everybody, but it sounds like they’re already taken care of. I guess Trump doesn’t need to promise to do anything, then. It’s already done.

Maybe you mean to suggest his “universal healthcare” comments were about preferring that to Obamacare. But if so, then you have once again confirmed that Trump is a supporter of nationalized medicine.

So. is. every. other. candidate. up. there.

Who is talking about repealing Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the Indian Health Service?

Hogwash. You’re trying to claim we already have nationalized medicine by including VA and Indian Health Services, and then jump to claiming everyone supports nationalized medicine. All to pretend it’s no big deal if Trump does it.

I see you forgot Medicare and Medicaid. We do. Where is Cruz’s repeal bill for socialized medicine of Medicare and Medicaid?

I didn’t forget anything. I just pointed out that you threw in the VA and Indian Services in your rush to declare universal healthcare. One depends on you serving a certain amount of time in the military, the other depends on being born with Native American blood. Neither one is meant for the general public.

I see why you spend so much time trying to defend Trump. It takes a lot of work to make him sound intellectually coherent and explain away all the times he’s staked out a position just like what the progressives want.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 30, 2016 at 2:21 AM

When you have to deal with so many people spreading misinformation and moving goalposts, yeah you spend a lot of time calling out their BS.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 3:41 AM

Seems to me you’re trying to shovel BS every time the truth about Trump comes up in conversation.

Just on this thread alone, we have Trump spreading misinformation that Cruz “may not be” an American citizen at all. That is BS, and what is yours and Trump’s role in it? Spreading it all around.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 12:10 AM

And in just this thread alone, we have you spreading BS that he is, except no one can see his records or his mothers because he refuses to show them.

Just like Obama.

NWConservative on January 31, 2016 at 1:22 AM

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? The facts are already known. Demanding to see all his papers on the assertion that he surely must be hiding something is ridiculous.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 3:58 AM

I quoted the law, and it’s clear she didn’t meet the residency requirement.

How do you know? Do you have her visa application? Do you have access to her immigration paperwork? No you don’t. So the proposition that “it’s clear she didn’t meet the residency requirement” is predicated on a belief that a politician isn’t lying to you.

If she hadn’t been there five years, then she didn’t meet the residency requirement. If you want to claim she was a Canadian citizen, then you need to show how she met her 5-year residency requirement in 3 years. Wishful thinking doesn’t make it so.

How can we when we can’t get any information because Cruz has sealed everything up and laughs it off.

Tedious. The facts are already known. You don’t have to examine the birth certificate if you already know he was born, where he was born, and who he was born to. Not only is it not hidden, no effort has been made to hide where he was born.

The constitution requires a natural born citizen, Cruz was born to a father who was violating his green card residency requirements and bribed and lied his way to get to the US, and he has clammed up on any information about his parents and when and what they were doing in Canada regarding their immigration status.

You really are a desperate liar.

Says a guy who tells everyone that he knows beyond a doubt of his conclusions based on no concrete evidence.

I explained exactly what I meant in the rest of the paragraph.

When you can’t prove your phony claim that Cruz’s mother might have been a Canadian citizen, you double down and make all kinds of accusations about his father and pretend there are all kinds of serious and unanswered questions. As if any of those “concerns” would change whether or not Cruz was a citizen.

I was going by what his father stated. I’m sorry you can’t rebut it. Who knows how long they were actually in Canada because all we have is the word of a liar Cruz Sr.

You’re certainly proving the “desperate” part right. So now we’re supposed to believe Cruz’s father lied about when he went to Canada to protect his son’s chance to run for the presidency one day. BTW, he became a Canadian citizen in 1973, 3 years after Ted’s birth, and moved the whole family back to Texas in 1974.

If Trump really thinks Cruz is not a citizen, why doesn’t he sue him. He would actually have standing for such a lawsuit.

I hope he does. And takes down Marco Rubio with him.

He won’t. He’s had all this time to talk about it, and hasn’t shown the first inclination to do anything about it.

If he doesn’t, it would be a shame.

It still looks like it won’t matter anyways after tomorrow.

He won’t.

And you know why he doesn’t. It works more to his advantage to pretend there’s some question.

Well after Cruz’s latest antics in Iowa trying to tell voters to vote or he will let all their neighbors know should land him in jail for voter intimidation.

And now you try to change the subject to yet another made-up scandal.

A made up scandal confirmed by Ted Cruz.

He should take him to court, but Cruz is ensuring that his candidacy will be irrelevent very soon. If not in Iowa, then in NH and SC.

I guess we’ll see.

I love how you presume to know what I’m thinking. Trump SHOULD take the Canadian to court.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 3:51 AM

All I have to do is observe. You piously proclaimed that Cruz was “playing games with Constitutional requirements,” but don’t mind when Trump plays games.

Where did I say I don’t mind when Trump plays games? Link it.

This very thread, when you claimed Cruz was playing games with Constitutional requirements, and I pointed out that Trump was playing games himself by a) pretending great concern over whether Cruz was a natural born citizen, but never actually doing anything about it, like filing a lawsuit, and b) raising questions whether Cruz was even a US citizen.

Yet you object to Cruz “playing games,” but had no criticism of Trump for “playing games.”

Trump says, “You know, I hear Cruz may not be a natural born citizen. He should try to clear that up. After all, Democrats might try to sue him.” Shortly after, Trump starts playing “Born in the USA” at all his political rallies. Then he starts talking about it more and more. When Cruz defends himself, he starts saying that Cruz “is just a nasty guy that nobody likes.” And now he’s suggesting that Cruz may not even be a US citizen at all. And all this time, if Trump was really concerned about it, he was one of the few people in the world with standing to file a lawsuit against Cruz.

Anyone paying attention can see that Trump is trying to play on people’s doubts to cut down Cruz’s support. If he really thought there was an issue, he could file a lawsuit. He hasn’t, and he won’t, because he knows it will fail.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 12:30 AM

Cruz started attacking him first by questioning Donald Trump’s judgement to be President.

And you have no idea how a lawsuit challenging his eligibility for the presidency would go.

Secondly, I would love to see how you would deal with Jerry Brown and other democrat governors telling their democrat secretary of states to remove Ted Cruz’s line from their ballots due to him being ineligible.

NWConservative on January 31, 2016 at 1:40 AM

Cruz started it? Well, that makes it ok?

Wait, candidates are not supposed to question each other’s judgement?

As for how a lawsuit challenging his eligibility would go, I think I have a pretty good idea. I can also see that Trump has not bothered filing such a lawsuit, so it looks like he doesn’t see a chance for it, either.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 4:23 AM

He’s not a natural born citizen because he was not born of two citizen parents and on US soil.

As for the citizenship, you are speculating because you have the same information that everyone else has, NOTHING. Because of Ted Cruz.

Citizenship at birth is well defined by statute. There is no provision anywhere for any category of citizen except by birth, and naturalized. Cruz was never naturalized.

Some will claim that Congress created a new category of born-but-not-natural-born, but Congress seems to not be aware of having done so. The Supreme Court also does not seem to be aware of a third category.

That is also a possibility. Why does Cruz refuse to put this to rest? Why does he insist on hiding his parent’s immigration status? It looks guilty.

And it’s a possibility that you’re a paid staffer for Trump.

Non sequitor. But I wish I was paid to debate Cruz tru believers.

I’m sorry. I thought we were sharing irrelevant possibilities. It’s also possible you’re a highly trained dog. I don’t seriously consider that possibility. The possibility of you being a paid staffer for Trump is more plausible, but I don’t have a good reason to believe that. Still, it’s far more likely than the chain of events that would lead to Cruz not being a citizen of the US at all. There’s simply nothing to indicate that his mother was anything but a US citizen.

Oh, and I’m hardly a Cruz true believer. Just finding Trump and some of his supporters increasingly more tiresome, and finding their attacks less and less likely to deserve being taken seriously.

If so, I hope you’re paid based on your prodigious quantity rather than the quality. Because “it’s a possibility” in the absence of any real evidence is just weak.

He makes the assertion that he’s eligible. The burden of proof is on him. But the Cruz bootlickers would rather just call out “BIRTHER!!!!1!!!” and use faith as substitution for facts rather than actually discuss the issue.

Show reasonable grounds to question his citizenship rather than assumptions. Otherwise, you’re operating just as much on faith as any “Cruz bootlicker.”

Here, I’ll help you out. I said, “Trying to suggest he might possibly not be a citizen is just grasping for straws.” I even bolded that part above, just in case you need to see it in context. And suggesting that he might not be a citizen at all is, as I said, hogwash.

Predicated on faith not facts.

If we’re going to talk about facts, where are yours?

Neither one of us has the facts, but you predicate your certainty on faith. Cruz says he’s eligible, then present the facts, the documents, the immigration paperwork, etc.

He won’t. He casts a shadow of doubt by sealing his records. Yet here you are telling everyone to shut up because Ted Cruz, PBUH, is being completely honest … because … shut up.

If Cruz sealed all his records, then how is it I can find his birth certificate on line?

Released over two years ago to the Dallas Morning News.

That’s a perfect example of why people don’t believe all these wild claims.

And the Constitution does not define it. The only law that ever defined “natural born citizen” said that children born abroad to American parents were natural born citizens.

And that law also used the plural form for parents. It did not children born abroad to an American parent were natural born citizens.

That same law also used the plural form for children.

Yes but it is not possible for a parent to reproduce asexually.

It seems obvious that the use of the plural form does not necessarily mean plural is always required. Which is why the use of “children” when you may be referring to just one child is significant.

And since we are quoting that law, women’s citizenship at the time of that law was conferred to her from her husband after marriage. So Ted Cruz would not be an American citizen, let alone an natural born citizen of the US.

And Vattel’s Law of Nations specifically said citizenship was passed from the father to the children, which would make it unnecessary for both parents to be citizens. It’s hardly a stretch to see how the law would change to allow either father or mother to pass along citizenship.

Not to mention that it was repealed and replaced with referring to them as being only a citizens five years later by James Madison.

The 1795 act described two groups of people in a single sentence: minor children of naturalized citizens who became naturalized at the time their parents were naturalized, and children born abroad to American citizens.

Obviously, that sentence could not specify that both groups were “natural born citizens,” since the first group of people were already born, so could not obtain citizenship by birth.

And the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to define natural born citizens only the power to naturalize them. Because a natural born citizen is born to two citizen parents.

The founders understood this, which is why during the naturalization act debate in Congress for the 1795 replacement, they spent so much time debating an amendment over noble titles. Because a noble coming to the US and marrying an American woman would have natural born citizen children here who could inherit his titles and lands.

The Constitution actually says that Congress can establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Exactly, they can only naturalize. Natural born implies that they do not need congressional authority to say they are citizens. Why is it that there is no federal statute conferring citizenship on children of two citizen parents born in the US?

Nope. The Constitution does not say that Congress can only naturalize. It simply assigns to Congress the power to make a uniform rule of naturalization. That would certainly imply the power to say, “this group of people are born citizens, and do not need to be naturalized.”

The only way to apply a standard to all candidates is to rely on the law, and the only laws concerning citizenship define two categories: citizen by birth, and naturalized citizens. There is no third category.

If you have to point to statutory law you are not a natural born citizen.

A meaningless platitude.

Wrong.

It’s a pure assumption, just like the oft-repeated version that says if you have to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment, you’re not a natural born citizen.

The Constitution doesn’t define natural born citizen. Congress defines the rules of naturalization, and that necessarily means they define the scope of who needs to be naturalized.

Exactly. They only have authorization to establish a uniform rule to naturalize after the fact be it at birth or from application. They can establish native citizens and naturalized citizens, not natural born citizens.

They are not legally able to define a citizen born in the US to two citizen parents. Because it follows natural law and common sense.

No statute that I’m aware of declares that citizenship at birth is naturalized. That would be a contradiction in terms. If you’re born a citizen, you’re not naturalized. Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen, when you were not before.

Otherwise illegal aliens having a child makes that kid eligible for the presidency.

Osama Bin Laden could have kidnapped an American woman, married her, sired a son in Afghanistan and raised him there, and he would be a natural born citizen of the US under your definition.

That’s insanity and pretzel logic.

If we’re going to create wild hypotheticals, Osama bin Laden could have crossed the Mexican border with a pregnant wife, waited for her to deliver, and then that child would be a born citizen of the US.

Under your wild pretzel logic, yes.

Under the interpretation that any child born on US soil is a US citizen. Obviously, the position that citizenship is inherited from birth to an American citizen parent or parents is much better.

If they were here legally, then the child would be a citizen under the 14th amendment, note that it does not state natural born citizen does it?

Can you point to anything that says that a citizen at birth is NOT a natural born citizen? It’s fairly easy to point out that Congress recognizes only two categories of citizen: born and naturalized. I’ve yet to see anything substantive where Congress has acknowledged the existence of born-but-not-natural-born citizens.

All you’re really doing here is pointing out that if you determine citizenship by either birthplace or birth parents, you can always come up with some scenario where someone is born an American citizen who has no loyalty to the US.

Which is why I state you need to have two citizen parents and be born here. Because in the vast, vast majority of situations, they will stay here.

Which would deny birth citizenship to the children of any American travelers who didn’t make it home in time for the birth, or to any children of soldiers or government workers overseas, or the children of an American soldier who married a wife overseas, brought her home, started her on the path to citizenship, and had a baby before she could be completely naturalized.

At any rate, the proper question is not what you want or think it should be, but what is the current state of law.

But we’re not dealing with hare-brained hypotheticals here.

Made possible by your demand to dilute the requirements to be a natural born citizen.

I’ve demanded nothing, except that we follow the law.

The only question is, what does the law say? You may wish that being a natural born citizen required being the child of two American citizens born and raised in the US, but there is no law that defines it that way.

Because they are natural born citizens.

The current law does not define natural born citizen. of course, according to your theories, the definition of natural born citizen can never be clarified or updated.

Some would want the requirement to be that both parents and grandparents were born and raised in the US, but that’s not what the law says.

That is not what anyone says. The law of nations and the founders wanted it to be two citizen parents and born on the soil or American property.

The law of nations is rather amorphous, since so many have their own versions, but it was generally considered that citizenship passed from father to children. Obviously, an updated law would almost certainly include citizenship passing from mother to children as well.

It is, which is why Cruz had to point to congressional law to make himself a citizen. Congress declared he was a citizen at birth. They cannot confer natural born citizenship status to someone because the Constitution does not vest them with that power.

The Constitution does not define what natural born citizen means. All your attempts to muddy the water come down to the question,

The only muddying of the water being done is by Cruz and you. It is crystal clear, every president has been a natural born citizen or exempted by the Constitution, except Obama and potentially Cruz.

And if Cruz is president, he will continue that tradition.

Cruz was born a citizen, never naturalized.

If his mom didn’t become a Canadian citizen, sure based on current Congressional law.

Congress did not naturalize him.

They did because he wouldn’t be considered a citizen unless he was protected by statute. Hence he’s not a natural born citizen.

If there was never a point in time when Cruz was not a citizen, then he was not naturalized.

Congress has defined a process of naturalization, but it did not apply to Cruz.

Except the statute that stated he was a citizen.

By birth rather than naturalization.

There is no law stating who is a natural born citizen because with a natural born citizen, there no question of dual allegiance to a foreign power. Their parents are citizens and they were born in the US.

Which is why no president was ever foreign born.

Another assertion without evidence. If the Constitution defined natural born citizen or gave a reference where it was defined, then you could argue that there was no role for Congress.

It was common knowledge at the time. They never thought that they would have Ted Cruz and Barack Obama saying they were natural born citizens.

Just like they thought that the commerce clause wouldn’t be an IWIN card for the federal government or that the Bill of Rights wouldn’t be needed.

They didn’t think it was a question.

The 1790 Naturalization act declared that children born to American citizens abroad were natural born citizens. Apparently, the Founding Fathers believed Congress could have a role in defining what was a natural born citizen.

You’ll note it did not say that children born to American citizens abroad were automatically naturalized, but that they were natural born citizens.

If Trump really believed Cruz was not eligible, he would file a suit.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 30, 2016 at 2:43 AM

There is a real question to be settled and Trump SHOULD file suit.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 4:19 AM

Trump won’t. Apparently, he either doesn’t believe there is a real question to be settled, or just doesn’t care about it like he claims to.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 12:56 AM

Again, you have no idea. Just like you have no idea what the Democrats will do to Cruz if he were the nominee. No you and Ted Cruz would rather us head into a situation where the Democrats discover something about his mother rescinding her citizenship, or win a lawsuit against his eligibility, or remove him from the ballot, destroying the top of the ticket.

That’s stupid and reckless.

NWConservative on January 31, 2016 at 2:13 AM

All hypotheticals with no backing. But thank you for your concern.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 6:10 AM

This cult mentality around Trump has to end.

SteveMG on January 29, 2016 at 4:34 PM

And the cult mentality around Cruz must start.

Cruz is carrying plenty of baggage himself. It’s just not apparent to those with blinders on. All they can see is Trump leading in the polls and he doesn’t deserve it by god!!!!

So it’s full speed ahead to kick Trump out.

Of course, Cruz has had 6 months to do so and still hasn’t.

jake1246 on January 31, 2016 at 1:36 PM

NWConservative on January 31, 2016 at 2:13 AM

All hypotheticals with no backing. But thank you for your concern.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 6:10 AM

Thanks for answering the troll with too much time to write and less ability to think.

Trump is not for nationalized healthcare, he is for nationalized insurance in the way that you can purchase it across state lines.

NWConservative on January 31, 2016 at 1:22 AM

Here is Donald Trump explaining his views on nationalized healthcare. Maybe he will make Mexico pay for that, too.

widget on February 1, 2016 at 10:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7