5.93K
Interactions

In order to qualify to be president, the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

So what defines a “natural-born citizen”?  The answer has not been so simple over the years. The framers left it fairly vague and up to us to interpret throughout our history, and it is an issue that has gone back and forth.

This has all been brought into question as a result of one man whom various media outlets have kept an eye on as a possible presidential candidate in 2016. The man in question is freshman U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. His parents were working in the oil business there. Cruz’s father did not become a U.S. citizen until 2005. So though he has made trips to Iowa and the media seems to be watching him quite closely, does he even meet the qualifications of being a natural-born citizen?

145731159_640

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This still only leaves a very vague definition for what constitutes a natural-born citizen. So now we look toward Section 5 of the 14th Amendment which states, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

It should also be noted that under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has authority to create law regarding naturalization which includes citizenship.

So now we know that Congress, under the 14th Amendment, can write legislation declaring what constitutes a natural-born citizen. And yes, that means that there will be legal challenges and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will have to make sure such legislation does not violate the Constitution in any way… including Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

In the case Minor v. Happersett (1875), the court ruled, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” – Minor v. Happersett

Though the Constitution is vague in what constitutes a natural-born citizen, Congress has stepped in to attempt to fill in the gap. Under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines the following as citizens of the United States upon birth… or natural-born citizens:

  • Anyone born inside the United States. The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. (This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.)
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

By the conditions just laid out, it would appear that Senator Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president as he would not qualify as a natural-born citizen since only one of the parents was a citizen of the U.S.

However, there still exists one more historical clause which will challenge this argument. The clause states, “a person born before May 24, 1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.” is a citizen.

Does this change the argument? If it is grouped with Section 1401 of Title 8 of the US Code, then it would appear so.

Currently, citizenship in the U.S. is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.  The most recent changes to statutory law was done by Congress in 2001. So since this most recent debate has circulated around Cruz, I am going to focus on one particular section… birth abroad to one U.S. citizen.

There are a certain set of rules for those born after November 14, 1986, but I’m focusing on the rules at the time of Cruz’s birth, which are the rules that were in effect from December 24, 1952 – November 14, 1986. A person born abroad between those dates is a U.S. citizen upon birth if all of the following are true:

  1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth;
  2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born;
  3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth; and
  4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

By these very definitions of the law, it would appear that Cruz is a natural-born citizen and thus meets the qualifications to run for president if he decided to do so. This also does one more thing, as well.

image005

In regards to President Obama, if the “birther” theory had been proven correct (and I’m not saying that it is) in that he had been born in Kenya (instead of Hawaii) to his U.S. mother and his Kenyan father, he would still qualify as a natural-born citizen.

As I stated at the beginning, this issue is a complicated mess. The Framers left it vague when they wrote the Constitution. Did they do it because they couldn’t foresee our future situations or was it so we could make such a determination as our nation progressed? One can only really speculate on that.

Regardless, we have done our best to set forth a definition, and one that holds for all Americans — born here and born abroad. The laws have changed throughout our history, and they will probably change again in our future.

For now, we go by the laws which we have — the laws in which we live by — the laws that govern our society. They apply to us all equally. In this confusing mixture, I hope there has been some small sense to the issue and that now we can have a better understanding of it.

About the Author

James Spurgeon
James Spurgeon

James has a degree in communications and works within the media. He knows how to research any topic that he writes about… approaching the topic from both sides of the issue and break them down. He doesn’t consider himself a Democrat or a Republican.

Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.

The Independent Voter Network is dedicated to providing political analysis, unfiltered news, and rational commentary in an effort to elevate the level of our public discourse.


Learn More About IVN

1260 comments
Surly Curmudgen
Surly Curmudgen

There is a poster here who has not been anywhere near correct on a single point in this entire thread. Yet he addresses others as stupid. Priceless!

Are there any mods here? That poster should be removed altogether!

Russrhs
Russrhs

@Surly Curmudgen yes I agree, totally clueless and refuses to read the facts.  typical obot mentality  

Russrhs
Russrhs

@Surly Curmudgen  Palos/ prather are clueless, nationality act of 1965 makes no mention of natural born citizen or presidential requirements and it wouldn't apply to Obama anyways. he was born in 1961. you have to go by the laws on the books at the time of birth, not what they might be changed to sometime in the future.  what a bunch of D/A's   notice they never reply to the facts, only keep posting there dumb opinions with no backing.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

This thread is made up of morons who are some new kind of stupid.  It was fun for a bit, but the magpies are simply stupid is all. And its no longer entertaining.  This is an old outdated article now.

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos  especially all u obots who refuse to read the facts and have nothing to add but your own opinions that add up to a big bag of nothing

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos  http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/files/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      LOOK UNDER RIGHTS AND RESPOSIBILITIES OF CITIZENS.   This used to say must be born in the USA, now says must be native born.   this also  makes cruz ineligible   good luck   this one more link from a govt website that proves you wrong again.    I see you still got nothing

ShirleyGessner
ShirleyGessner

@Russrhs Obama did not run up 18 million in debt - you can thank the Republicans for that beginning with Reagon (tripled debt) and "W" (doubled).  Just because a President leaves office doesn't mean his policies that caused the spending immediately stops.

RodPr
RodPr

@Russrhs @MikeyPalos  First thing I noticed was that the phrase "Natural Born Citizen".  was replaced with "Native Born Citizen".  And Mikey, A Native citizen has numerous definitions for children born outside the borders of the U.S. to citizen parents.  Only one parent must be a citizen, even naturalized, for a child to claim citizenship.  There are limitations to this but they primarily deal with Enemies of the State who might by some change give birth inside the US.  Cruz IS a citizen, as much as I wish he weren't.

Though I agree with many that this rule needs to be revisited and collated into a single document, if not just to clarify the rule, that is the way it stands at this point.  Going back and attempting to rehash the "Natural Born Citizen" language of the constitution is an invalid position because it was never defined.   

Russrhs
Russrhs

@RodPr @Russrhs @MikeyPalos  Wrong again. It was changed from born in the usa to native born.    it was never defined specifically in the constitution. the constitution is not a dictionary.  it was however defined several times by the scotus. those cases have been posted several times over on this thread, perhaps you should read them.   the constitution does state who is a citizen, try reading the 14th amendment.  one born here of within the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen here.  .     the reference used in writing the constitution does define what a nbc is.   history also tells us  that a nbc is one born here to citizen parents because every potus with the exception of those in the beginning that were grand fathered in and Obama were all born here to citizen parents.  also, the first seven potus were all born here but were not nbc.        try also reading senate resolution 511, which clinton and Obama agree with because they ci sponsored the resolution.  it declares McCain a nbc because of two reasons, born on a Us military base abroad and BOTH his parents were citizens at the time of his birth.    then read bill S 2128 which is also posted above, where they tried to CHANGE the meaning / definition of nbc to one simply born here, with no regard to parents citizenship and to one born abroad to just one citizen parent,    If you think this is the current law why did they try and change it to this?     the bill failed so the original law prevailed and is still current, born here to citizen parents is a nbc. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs @MikeyPalos Already gave it, but stupid folks like yourself are only good at ignoring reality and facts.  That is all that can be said about you; IS STUPID.  Regardless of your little brain,  he is eligible via the 1965 Immigration Act and it has not been challenged to SCOTUS. So   Sorry stupid there is nothing more to say as you are too stupid to learn anything new. .

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs @MikeyPalos Already gave it, but stupid folks like yourself are only good at ignoring reality and facts.  That is all that can be said about you; IS STUPID.  Regardless of your little brain,  he is eligible via the 1965 Immigration Act and it has not been challenged to SCOTUS. So   Sorry stupid there is nothing more to say as you are too stupid to learn anything new. .

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@RodPr @Russrhs Thanks,  I am well aware I am correct and Russrhs is an imbecile.  The two given facts in the conversation 

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos @Russrhs  once again. I have posted the nationality act of 1965. If you take the time to read it. it does not mention anything about anybody being a natural born citizen. would u like me to repost the link so u can read it.  

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos N/A of 1965   

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. It was proposed by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, and promoted by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).[1]

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos  As you can read in the above post  the N/A of 1965 makes no mention of natural born citizens.  nice try, nice spin but try again.    what is ur response to senate resolution 511?   what is ur response to S2128.  both of these will prove u wrong. good luck   they are both posted in this thread from govt websites. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs @MikeyPalos It most certainly does state the requirements, stupid.  And what it states is what is needed to be eligible for President.  Stupid.  Only one parent that meets the residency requirements.  STUPID.  It is settled unless SCOTUS takes it up.  STUPID. Someone with standing must challenge it, STUPID.  There is no more to be said about your ultra, your uber and your profound STUPIDITY.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs @MikeyPalos Just more magpie replies from the Stupid section is all that you post here. Inconsequential until challenged to SCOTUS by someone with standing.  Stupid.

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos @Russrhs  As you can read from the link I posted on the nationality act of 1965, it makes no mention what so ever about natural born citizens.   Did you even read it?????    nice try but try again, this has nothing to do with nbc 

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos @Russrhs    still waiting on ur response on sen res 511 and  S2128 both of which prove you obots wrong     cant wait to hear ur spin on both of those  lol lol lol  good luck

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos  I see you still have no reply to the facts listed in sen res 511 and s2128  lol lol lol    you got nothing.

Russrhs
Russrhs

well I've read and posted ur link. the nationality act of 1965 like 5 times now. it makes no mention of any natural born citizen anywhere in it. so who is the embscile. that we be u. the nationality act of 1965 does not help ur case at all. try again. also I see u still have not responded to Sen results 511 or s 2128 which both prove u wrong. good luck

Russrhs
Russrhs

u must be reading the nationality act from some left wing blog because if I read the actually text that is posted above from a govt website and wiki. it makes no mention of natural born citizen or presidential requirements. again what is ur response to Sen results 511 and s2128 both of which prove u wrong. good luck and next time try and provide a link that supports the garbage ur spewing

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos One other thing D/A.  /the nationality act of 1965 which does not mention anything about natural born citizen or presidential requirement's would not cover Obama anyways . he was born in 1961, you have to go by the laws on the books at the time of birth. what a D/A

Russrhs
Russrhs

I see you two left wing anti American liberals still have nothing. good riddance

RodPr
RodPr

@Russrhs I see all the right wing kooks still ignore facts and replace them with protracted half truths, gleaned from falacy. 

ShirleyGessner
ShirleyGessner

@Russrhs Anit-American Liberals?  I consider myself a Liberal - how dare you call me anti-American!  Don't you know that it was the Liberal Movement that helped create the middle class?  Or are you so brainwashed that you won't even look up history?  

RodPr
RodPr

@ShirleyGessner @Russrhs "When a debate is won, slander becomes the tool of the loser"  Socrates   I would call myself a Progressive.  Social Conservatism is nothing but an excuse to be greedy and self absorbed.

Russrhs
Russrhs

the facts have been posted many times over. u still refuse to respond to them. fyi. I'm not a right wing republican. nice try though. so what is ur response to Sen results 511. and s2128. both of which also prove u wrong along the the many other posted factual links from govt websites. good luck

ksdb
ksdb

@ShirleyGessner @Russrhs How does allegedly helping to create a middle class make someone American?? That makes no sense. 

Surly Curmudgen
Surly Curmudgen

@ShirleyGessner @Russrhs 

Sweatheart those who currently call themselves liberal have never been anywhere near being liberal. The same with those calling themselves progressive, they are hiding their ideology and using the labels "liberal and progressive" as a facade to conceal their regressive ideology.

Russrhs
Russrhs

exactly. go back and look how many times palos and Prather have called several people dumb,stupid,embscile, etc. just read the links provided and you will learn u have no clue and are wrong. still waiting for ur response on Sen results 511. and s2128. they both will also prove u wrong along with all the rest that were posted. u won't respond because you k ow ur wrong

ShirleyGessner
ShirleyGessner

@Russrhs No, ultra conservatives are anti-American.  All they care about are themselves.


ShirleyGessner
ShirleyGessner

@Surly Curmudgen @ShirleyGessner @Russrhs Don't call me sweetheart.  I am an independent with liberal ideas - consider myself a moderate in all things.  We are not regressive; that is the current GOP.  Their ideas would take us back to the 19th century.

ShirleyGessner
ShirleyGessner

@ksdb @ShirleyGessner @Russrhs You make no sense.  The typical American is middle-class, and it took the liberal movement to help create it.   Unions were a big part, which the rich were and still are against.  It took a progressive President to help create them:  Teddy Roosevelt, back when Republicans were progressive.  Now they want to do away with all programs that improved the standard of living for so many.  That's regressive.

Russrhs
Russrhs

lmao, conservatives and ultra conservatives are harmless. they actually donate more to charity than anybody . take a look at obama, and killary. fast and furious scandal ,benghazi scandal, border scandal, VA scandal, giving Morsi f16s etc, 1.5 billion misiing from afghanistan, haiti scandal , missing emails, wiped server clean, taking millions from Arab countries , uranium scandal, etc. etc.. etc. goes on forever. anti Americans

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@ShirleyGessner @Russrhs Saying it doesn't make it so.  What we do care about is following our laws.  And Not making up or ignoring ones you don't care for.

Russrhs
Russrhs

did I mention the terrorist he let go free from gitmoe. etc. etc. anti American. 18 trillion in debt and counting.

ShirleyGessner
ShirleyGessner

@Russrhs I am convinced that you are a paid Tea Party tool - who else would post such crap.

ShirleyGessner
ShirleyGessner

@MikeyPalos @ShirleyGessner @Russrhs Oh, like the 47 Senators who violated the Logan Law?  They should all be in jail.  The Constitution clearly states that only the President has the power to NEGOTIATE treaties - not the Senate.  They have the power to RATIFY it after negotiations are concluded.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@ShirleyGessner @Russrhs He isn't TP, Tparty has no problem following and abiding the law.  You're not very astute as to what the TParty is all about.  But then, most on this blog are not the sharpest tools in the drawer. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@ShirleyGessner @Russrhs You're correct Shirley, he did not run up 18 million, he ran up 8 Trillion more than all others before him combined.   The President's policies are only reflected when he doesn't veto; otherwise its Congress who runs it up.  Now see, Obama has put the word out that spending is the end game.  But then I digress with you two. 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@ShirleyGessner @MikeyPalos @Russrhs 

Not so much:


"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"

By the advice and consent of the Senate, the President may make treaties. He doesn't get to go it alone then just hand them a finished copy.


Before arguing about the Constitution, one should read the Constitution.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@ShirleyGessner @ksdb @Russrhs 

Capitalists built the wealth, prosperity and middle class for which this nation is famous. Detroit's Capitalists made it one of the wealthiest cities in the nation and the home to arts, motown music and the American Dream.

It took Progressives and their Unions to tear it all down and leave the city a devastated ruin.


They're not done pillaging, yet.

Russrhs
Russrhs

you are correct.. 18 trillion is total national debt. obama ran up 8 trillion in 6 years. all other potus combined ran it uo 10 trillion. in Jan 2017 when obama is destroying the USA total nation debt will be approx 20 trillion.

Russrhs
Russrhs

the facts have been posted many times over. u two A clowns are the ones that refuse to read them. nothing in Na of 1965. concerning nbc. read it. it's posted above like 5 times da. I see ur still having a hard time with Sen res 511 and s 2128 that both prove u wrong. make sure u two fill out ur ID/10/T forms.

RussFowler
RussFowler

@Speak2Truth @ShirleyGessner @ksdb @Russrhs 

I was a union steward for 15 years. You are correct about the union. Long before the union I told the big wigs that if they do not treat the employee's correct, one day you will have a union. When the union was trying to get in, the company started to promise raise, promotion. So the union was vote out. Guess what, no promotion or raise. 3 years later the union try again and got in. It was a mess, some people got big raise, other got no raise, the union was trying to clear up the mess the company created. as time went on, we started getting dead beats because of seniority. I try my best to fight the company just as hard as to the employee's. The reason I kept the job for so long is that the employee's knew I was fighting for them but still trying to be fair to the company. The employee's fought for more benefits and soon the company lost the contract because of cost. So they just voted them selves out of a job. Glad that we lost,  I found another job with no union. I was so happy to get away from the dead beats..

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@ShirleyGessner @Surly Curmudgen @Russrhs Shirley, You mean the 19th Century when we were free and the Constitution was followed.  Moderate is simply another term for someone who wants to pick and choose what laws get followed.  If it feels good, do it mentality.  I'm no fan of the current GOP because they are lite Democrats at best.  In other words they are moderates. 

RodPr
RodPr

@MikeyPalos @ShirleyGessner @Surly Curmudgen @Russrhs  Honestly, Mikey, we have been in this same fiscal mess before.  Where the very wealthy bought our government, our senators and our Representatives.  From the 1890s until the great crash, big business ran the United States.  Though sometimes called the "Golden Age" it was a period of great poverty for a high percentage of Americans


The Industrial Revolution was fought, not with bullets, but with the lives of the working class.  They worked for pennies and lived in what we today would call ghettos.  The greed of the 20s pushed the economy to the breaking point.  Today we know, economically and statistically, what caused that failure and why.

IT WAS KEYNESIAN economics that gave us 40 years of middle class wealth and simultaneous economic growth.  It was this idea that a median national income balanced close to the mean would maximize and strengthen the overall economic function. 


IT IS THE LIE OF Supply side economics that has pushed us back to the1920s, fiscally. As small businesses struggle and corporate entities take more and more of the market and the middle class is pushed out of the equation.   Wake up people.  You've been boondoggled.

ShirleyGessner
ShirleyGessner

@Russrhs Thanks to the irresponsible policies of "W", Obama was forced to do a stimulus to keep us from falling into another depression, which added to debt.  Had "W" been more fiscally responsible, stimulus would not have been necessary.  And, again, the war expenses  were set in motion by Bush and did not stop just because he left office.  And you seem to forget how much Obama has cut the deficit since he's been in office.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@RodPr @MikeyPalos @ShirleyGessner @Surly Curmudgen @Russrhs Always blaming others is what a good Democrat does.  'corporate entities take more and more of the market' this makes no sense. There are many markets. Government recently seized 17% of the free Health Insurance market, What market do you speak of?   True, Keynesian economics keeps the middle class but it has not been in practice since before the Great Depression save for now, Obamanomics, keeps our taxes high, has driven the jobs that middle class do right overseas where taxes are lower.  You just keep telling yourself that as you cede your freedoms for government safety nets only to collapse like the Keynesian economics did in the early 1900s.  I get a kick out of your embellishing as only Democrats can do so well. 

ShirleyGessner
ShirleyGessner

@MikeyPalos @ShirleyGessner @Surly Curmudgen @Russrhs You really are delusional!  Only the rich white anglo saxon men were free.  Women had no rights, the poor died in the streets, disease was rampant.  Is that what you want?  And moderate means being able to work with other people, listen to their side and find a compromise.  

Russrhs
Russrhs

shirley, that was only for palos and Prather. but generally speaking libs are anti American. look at the one in the wh

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@ShirleyGessner @Russrhs Shirley doesn't realize how in-congruent that statement is.  Conservatives are about adherence and fidelity to the Constitution, which limits the powers of the government making everyone more free, more free to succeed and better oneself.  That is why the middle class has stalled, its because we are less free.  Freedom is American as apple pie.  don't know where Shirley is from.  But for sure she is Democrat, thinking she can change the meaning of words (moderate)..  Hahaha

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@ShirleyGessner @Russrhs Again Shirley shows her Democrat brain, shared with the others.  More attempts at appearing learned in Economics;  LOL.  I agree, GW should have stayed out of it and allowed the Credit and GM collapse  to happen, since it was a culmination of a decade loose and easy credit and government intervention in the 90s. And it is not the job of government to save bad investors.    Your economic ignorance here is really salient here. 

Russrhs
Russrhs

@ShirleyGessner @Russrhs  , Stimulas was all about giving billions to companies so they could in turn donate millions back to DNC in next election cycle. look into the dozens of companies that received millions then filed bankruptcy protection and nobody knows where the money went until the next election cycle and they donated millions back to Obama campaign.  Solyndra, ener 1 corp, etc......  bush wars were voted on by house and senate, he did not use executive order to go to war. So you cant just blame bush.  Obama giving away billions to arab muslim countries  etc... all adding up.   national debt is different from national deficit , two very different things.  

Russrhs
Russrhs

@ShirleyGessner @MikeyPalos @Russrhs  Obama also violated logan law when he went to Kenya as a senator to help get his buddy elected. you know his buddy that slaughtered Christian's because he lost the election.   

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos   did you read this yet mikey, ur link  makes no mention of nbc or pres req.   what else you got. maybe u should read sen res 511   and S 2128.  enjoy. or maybe you should stick with selling sneakers

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos @RodPr @Russrhs  the only facts are you two A clowns, refuse to read the facts and educate yourselves and continue to look like D/As    read the links provided   still waiting on ur reply on sen res 511 and S2128 that prove you two A clowns wrong. u refuse to respond cause you know ur wrong  lol  lol  don't forget to fill out ur ID/10 T forms  

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs Sorry, but the 1965 IA was about ; 1 parent being a citizen and meeting the residence reqs.  And the one about being born here trumping all others has been around post slavery.  So post ur links all you want, it is settled by what I've provided.  End of sane discussion

Russrhs
Russrhs

@ShirleyGessner @Russrhs  irresponsible of W, bush spent approx. 5 trillion in 8years, Obama has spent approx. 10 trillion in 6 years.    in 2007 Obama stated on video that bush was irresponsible and unpatriotic for spending this amount. so what is Obama for spending over double what bush spent and he is not done yet. in jan 2017 when Obama is out of office nation debt will be approx. 20 trillion  

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos @Russrhs  well ill repost the N/A of 1965 another time just for you. This well make the 5th time ive posted just for you,  As you can read, it makes no mention of natural born citizen or anything your talking about.  I think you should probably just stick with selling sneakers since you have a hard time reading and understanding plain English.  So what was your response to senate resolution 511 and S 2128?  lol Do you need me to re post those as well n plain English another time jus for you.                                                                                                                                                                   

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. It was proposed by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, and promoted by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).[1]you.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos .  Ill repost the nationality act of 1965 one more time just for you.  It makes no mention of natural born citizen or presidential requirements , or how many parents etc.   So read thru it real quick and let me now where you are seeing all this nonsense,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. It was proposed by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, and promoted by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).[1]                                                                                                                                                                                Where is at mikey ?  not seeing it???????     might try another spin, you have just been proven wrong.    try reading senate resolution 511, make sure you read the part mentioning (BOTH PARENTS)   THEN READ s2128 A BILL THAT DID NOT PASS.

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos @Russrhs  WELL THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1965 IS POSTED ABOVE, SCROLL UP AND EDUCATE YOURSELF . FYI, ITS GOING TO MAKE YOU LOOK REALLY IGNORANT.  GOOD LUCK 

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos @Russrhs 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. It was proposed by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, and promoted by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).[1]

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos @Russrhs  ONE MORE TIME JUST FOR YOU, 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. It was proposed by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, and promoted by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).[1]

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos @Russrhs  AND ONE MORE TIME SINCE YOU HAVE A HARD TIME READING ENGLISH,

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. It was proposed by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, and promoted by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).[1]

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos  AS YOU CAN READ IN SENATE RES 511, BOTH PARENTS BEING CITIZENS AT TIME OF McCain BIRTH MAKE HIM A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. FYI H CLINTON AND B OBAMA BOTH SIGNED OFF ON THIS RESOLUTION. THAT MEANS THEY AGREE WITH IT  THEY AGREE THAT BOTH YOUR PARENTS ARE REQUIRED. ENJOY D/A 

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos  WHEN YOUR FINISHED READING SEN RES 511 READ THIS. THIS IS A BILL THAT WAS INTRIDUCED IN 2004 TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. THE BILL FAILED  AND IF YOU THINK THIS WAS THE LAW ALREADY WHY DID THEY TRY AND CHANGE IT TO THIS.   WHOOOOPS  YOUR THEORY JUST GOT A EPIC FAIL. THIS BILL DID NOT PASS SO THE EXSISTING LAW IS STILL IN FULL EFFECT.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s2128/text 

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos   HERE IS THE BILL THAT DID NOT PASS,  SO JUST FOR YOU THAT MEANS IT IS NOT THE LAW, IT FAILED. IT DID NOT PASS.   SO THE EXSISTING LAW IS STILL IN EFFECT AND CURRENT PRECEDENT LAW.  NBC

= BORN HERE TO CITIZEN PARENTS.    

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2128

To define the term ‘natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 25, 2004

Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To define the term ‘natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Natural Born Citizen Act’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’.

    (a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means--

      (1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and

      (2) any person born outside the United States--

        (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or

        (B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

    (b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term ‘United States’, when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

RodPr
RodPr

@Russrhs @ShirleyGessner You really DON'T understand economics.  Republicans left Obama with a 1.41 TRILLION Deficit and blocked all attempts to lower the budget.  The 2006 Congress produced a 900 B budget and CUT TAXES on the richest Americans an again BLOCKED all attempts to increase taxes.  It has taken this administration all of 6 years to lower that deficit to 2.6% of GDP from the 9.6% left behind by the Bush Admin after they pushed the GINI to 50% and caused the worst recession since 1929.  You're ignorance of History and Economic allows you to believe economic lies. Get a CLUE !

RodPr
RodPr

@Russrhs @MikeyPalos Nobody EVER questioned McCain's citizenship.  He was born to citizen parents in Panama.  No question as to citizenship whatsoever.  Keep on Topic.

Russrhs
Russrhs

@RodPr @Russrhs @ShirleyGessner  HERE IS YOUR FIRST CLUE.  WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL DEFICIT, TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL DEBT, TWO DIFF THINGS.  HELLO NEXT.  DID YOU READ THAT SENATE RES 511 AND S2128 YET... EDUCATE YOURSELF AND GET A CLUE

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs @MikeyPalos Actually it proves how ignorant you are because you believe posting outdated stuff matters.  The 1965 Act is why Cruz is eligible.  Now the 14th is being misinterpreted is neither here nor there until someone with standing challenges same to SCOTUS, to date that has not happened.  Until that happens,  this is settled.  Now either file suit in Federal court or shut up about it; you look foolish enough. 

Russrhs
Russrhs

@RodPr @Russrhs @MikeyPalos  WOW.  THE A CLOWNS BELIEVE YOU CAN BE BORN ABROAD TO ONLY ONE CITIZEN PARENT AND BE A NBC. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IS NOT THE CASE.  McCAIN WAS DECLARED A NBC FOR TWO REASON, ONE BORN ON A US MILITARY BASE WHICH FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE USA AND TWO BOTH HIS PARENTS WERE US CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH,

Russrhs
Russrhs

@MikeyPalos @Russrhs  HEY D/A. YOUR THE ONE THAT IS USING THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1965 AS PROOF AS TO WHY CRUZ IS ELIGIBLE. IM THE ONE THAT POSTED THAT ACT SEVERAL TIMES OVER PROVING THAT IT DOES NOT EVEN MENTON NBC OR PRESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS.  THE 14TH AMENDMENT DOES NOT MENTION NBC OR PRESIDENTIAL REQ EITHER... GET A CLUE DA.   TRY WITH SEN RES 511 AND S2128   IF YOU CAN READ THESE TWO YOU WILL BECOME EDUCATED AS TO WHY YOUR A DA

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs @RodPr @MikeyPalos As long as the residency requirement is met, yes this is true;  1965 Immigration Act.  All children born to Military personal regardless of where are NBC as long as the personal has met the residency requirements and are citizens. 

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs @MikeyPalos Hey D/A you didn't prove anything.  Cruz is a natural born citizen by being born to an American mother and having her citizenship at birth. (This same logic would apply to Obama, even if he were born in another country, which he wasn’t.)

Now shut up about it; you look stupid enough.  

Russrhs
Russrhs

if I didn't prove anything then u didn't read the resolution or the bill. cruz can never be a nbc. as much as I would.like him to be. he cannot. first of all he was not on here or the jurisdiction thereof. 2nd his dad was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. third he was a dual citizen at birth. obama. lol. he was most.likely born in kenya for many reasons. his dad was never a US citizen. obama could have been born in the white house and still not be a nbc.. natural born citizen is born here to citizen parents.. btw. according to the laws on the books in 1961 obama momma could not confer citizenship if he was born abroad. she was to young per the requirements. citizenship is is not natural born citizenship. that's two different things. look at the history of all of our presidents. with the exception of the ones in the begenning that were grand fathered in as just citizens and obama.. all were born here to citizen parents. all of them. the first 7 were all born on this soil but none were natural born. why? Simple da. there parents were not citizens. obama was a dual citizen at best at birth as well.. dual citizens have dual allegiances. potus must have sole allegiance to USA at birth. ie; natural born citizen.. also nationality act of 1965 doesn't apply to obama no matter what u think it says.

Russrhs
Russrhs

I think u should stick to selling sneakers have no clue on this topic

Russrhs
Russrhs

I understand everything I posted. that's why I posted it. it proves you wrong. obviously. u didn't read it or u don't understand it.

Russrhs
Russrhs

all I can tell you is. the reference used in writing the constitution, the constitution itself, the previous rulings of the scotus, past law and current law. along with our history ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

Russrhs
Russrhs

I have an idea. since u don't understand plain English very well. watch the video at the top. good luck.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs And yet reality remains,  Cruz is eligible, so me thinks you are wrong. u don't understand it.

Russrhs
Russrhs

I understand it very well. posted several links from govt websites explaining it. . it's all very clear clear and concise obviously, you didn't take the time to read any of them.

MikeyPalos
MikeyPalos

@Russrhs No... you don't, because reality does not back your claim, making your posts nonsense at best.

Leave a Comment
  1. MikeyPalos Russrhs No... you don't, because reality does not back your claim, making your posts nonsense at best.
  2. Russrhs I understand it very well. posted several links from govt websites explaining it. . it's all very clear clear and concise obviously, you didn't take the time to read any of them.
  3. MikeyPalos Russrhs And yet reality remains,  Cruz is eligible, so me thinks you are wrong. u don't understand it.
  4. Russrhs I have an idea. since u don't understand plain English very well. watch the video at the top. good luck.
  5. Russrhs all I can tell you is. the reference used in writing the constitution, the constitution itself, the previous rulings of the scotus, past law and current law. along with our history ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU.
  6. Russrhs I understand everything I posted. that's why I posted it. it proves you wrong. obviously. u didn't read it or u don't understand it.
  7. Russrhs I think u should stick to selling sneakers have no clue on this topic
  8. MikeyPalos Russrhs Evidently you didn't understand much of your copy and paste.
  9. MikeyPalos Russrhs And yet Cruz can be POTUS.  Hey D/A!!  We see who you are.
  10. Russrhs if I didn't prove anything then u didn't read the resolution or the bill. cruz can never be a nbc. as much as I would.like him to be. he cannot. first of all he was not on here or the jurisdiction thereof. 2nd his dad was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. third he was a dual citizen at birth. obama. lol. he was most.likely born in kenya for many reasons. his dad was never a US citizen. obama could have been born in the white house and still not be a nbc.. natural born citizen is born here to citizen parents.. btw. according to the laws on the books in 1961 obama momma could not confer citizenship if he was born abroad. she was to young per the requirements. citizenship is is not natural born citizenship. that's two different things. look at the history of all of our presidents. with the exception of the ones in the begenning that were grand fathered in as just citizens and obama.. all were born here to citizen parents. all of them. the first 7 were all born on this soil but none were natural born. why? Simple da. there parents were not citizens.