Thread: CRUZ IMMIGRATION PLAN SUMMARY

Those business's are still considered legal business's and they need to go after them as well. Plenty of business's held by illegal aliens, immigrants, and even citizens look specifically for illegal aliens while more so business's held by illegal aliens and immigrants. But when they are at risk of losing their business and a huge chunk of their money as well then things could change.

Far as birthright citizenship as long as 1 parent is a US citizen at time of birth then no issue. But citizenship should pass through the mother if not married and if a US citizen father signed the birth certificate at birth should be able to claim US citizenship as well. Cases like Cruz wouldn't be at odds as long as 1 biological or through marriage parent at birth is a US Citizen. The issue would come down to classes of Citizenship such as a Natural Born Citizen or a plain old Citizen.

Yet Cruz talks on legislation or changing the Constitution. Not enough balls to do it through Executive Order requiring Congress or the SCOTUS to rule on the issue to overturn him. Thanks to Obama even if Obama's DAPA and DACA fall a President could cite through Executive Order interpretation (but cite the grounds for interpretation) that bars citizenship based on just being born on US soil w/o having a parent who has US citizenship. Trump *might* have the balls to do that if congress or the SCOTUS won't take it up but def not Cruz or anyone else. Its the best way to force the issue to get handled.

This includes his stated desire to build a wall, not just about eminent domain.

TED CRUZ is FOR EMINENT DOMAIN!




BestPoliticalVideos

Published on Feb 8, 2016
Eminent domain (United States, the Philippines), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption (Hong Kong), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia), or expropriation (South Africa, Canada, Brazil) is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. However, it can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.[1]

The property may be taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties, who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, to economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for government buildings and other facilities, public utilities, highways, and railroads. However, it may also be taken for reasons of public safety, as in the case of Centralia, Pennsylvania. Some jurisdictions require that the condemnor make an offer to purchase the subject property, before resorting to the use of eminent domain.
Constitution

The practice of condemnation was transplanted into the American colonies with the common law. In the early years, unimproved land could be taken without compensation; this practice was accepted because land was so abundant that it could be cheaply replaced. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership.[4] James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose," "public interest", or "public benefit".[5]

The Fifth Amendment imposes limitations on the exercise of eminent domain: the taking must be for public use and just compensation must be paid. Some historians have suggested that these limitations on the taking power were inspired by the need to permit the army to secure mounts, fodder and provisions from local ranchers and the perceived need to assure them compensation for such takings. Similarly, soldiers forcibly sought housing in whatever homes were near their military assignments. To address the latter problem, the Third Amendment was enacted in 1791 as part of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. It provided that the quartering of soldiers on private property could not take place in peacetime without the landowner's consent. It also required that, in wartime, established law had to be followed in housing troops on private property. Presumably, this would mandate "just compensation," a requirement for the exercise of eminent domain in general per the Fifth Amendment.[6] All U.S. states have legislation specifying eminent domain procedures within their respective territories.[7]

The power of governments to take private real or personal property has always existed in the United States, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty. This power reposes in the legislative branch of the government and may not be exercised unless the legislature has authorized its use by statutes that specify who may use it and for what purposes. The legislature may take private property by passing an Act transferring title to the government. The property owner may then seek compensation by suing in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals for the purpose of acquiring access to their landlocked land. Its use was limited by the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, which reads, "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment did not create the national government's right to use the eminent domain power, it simply limited it to public use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwHHnjnndWA

The title is very misleading because the governments right to eminent domain is not in question, it's the law. This article was designed to be one of those gotcha articles, but it completely misses the point. Furthermore, it's only cuts, which we know can be taken out of context if the whole discussion is not considered. Moreover, Cruz does not support the abuse of eminent domain. That means he wouldn't support the taken of property for casinos, parking lots, and ball parks. As he said, the border fence is an issue of national security, so of course he would support eminent domain to build the border fence. I'm staunchly opposed to the abuse of eminent domain as every American should be, but unfortunately it is necessary is some instances. I'd say the security of our nation from invasion is one of those instances.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Those business's are still considered legal business's and they need to go after them as well. Plenty of business's held by illegal aliens, immigrants, and even citizens look specifically for illegal aliens while more so business's held by illegal aliens and immigrants. But when they are at risk of losing their business and a huge chunk of their money as well then things could change.

Far as birthright citizenship as long as 1 parent is a US citizen at time of birth then no issue. But citizenship should pass through the mother if not married and if a US citizen father signed the birth certificate at birth should be able to claim US citizenship as well. Cases like Cruz wouldn't be at odds as long as 1 biological or through marriage parent at birth is a US Citizen. The issue would come down to classes of Citizenship such as a Natural Born Citizen or a plain old Citizen.

You are missing the point regarding businesses owned by immigrants. The problem is from immigrants who go into business for the specific purpose of hiring immigrants and especially illegal immigrants. These immigrants would not even be immigrants if they could not plan on hiring illegals. Immigrants need to be threatened with deportation and loss of citizenship (if they have it) if they hire illegals. And no green card should ever be issued for employment by non-citizens or citizens who became citizens by applying for it.

Again, one parent cannot be sufficient for establish birthright citizenship. As I pointed above, if only only one parent is sufficient, then the other parent can be a criminal, completely incapable of having legal entry into the US. The only possible interpretation of the whole idea of birthright citizenship is that both parents must be US citizens in order to bestow citizenship on their offspring. Anything less than that is corrupt. This is what a Natural Born Citizen is, it is somebody born of parents who are both US citizens. Anything else is a simple corruption of language.

Sure would be nice if we could stay on topic.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

Again, one parent cannot be sufficient for establish birthright citizenship....

I misspoke meaning to say only citizenship. I was working on another thing in related to natural born citizenship which carried over accidentally to this post. I agree fully on it taking 2 parents to get natural born status and its even stated by the First Congress in saying "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the Unites States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." which citizens is plural not singular. It means you need more then one citizen parent. The SCOTUS has ruled that to interpret every letter and symbol must have a meaning which logically would conclude that lack thereof would also have meaning. There is no doubt. Its just liberal globalists who are trying to do away with that with things like nonsense notions such as thinking about those who never knew their father with all the single mothers and broken homes.