Thread: Neither Cruz nor Rubio are Natural Born citizens

Originally Posted by artist

Serving in the military outside of the US is an exception if both parents are US citizens. They are following orders to live elsewhere - Romney does not fit into that category but both parents were US citizens.

Military bases overseas are also considered US soil same as the US embassies overseas. Romney's issue would come in if before he was born his US Citizen father who was born in Mexico had never taken up residence in the US and as such would be unable to pass citizenship to Romney from his end. A US citizen cannot pass citizenship if they have no resided in the US 2 years before the child was born. I have no clue if his father did or didn't and on the issue I don't care to bother investigating that as not really an issue.

What I do find is that the First Congress stated
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as Natural Born Citizens: Provided that the right to citizenship shall not descend to persons who's fathers have never been a resident of the United States"

Soil doesn't matter as long as both parents are citizens (notice the plural citizens) and the father has resided in the US before birth. Later naturalization laws made it 2 years to establish the ability to pass citizenship in residence which is what is currently used.

Originally Posted by artist

Our justice system DISMISSED all O birther cases because "they did not show HARM/INJURY". The fix was in! Plenty of harm to show now.



Serving in the military outside of the US is an exception if both parents are US citizens. They are following orders to live elsewhere - Romney does not fit into that category but both parents were US citizens.

Not really. Pregnant spouses aren't under such an order, only the service member. Pregnant service members are sent back to the States for medical care. I believe that is still military policy.

Originally Posted by Judy

Not really. Pregnant spouses aren't under such an order, only the service member. Pregnant service members are sent back to the States for medical care. I believe that is still military policy.

Pregnant military members are not necessarily sent back to the U.S. for medical care. It would depend on their unites location and operational tempo. Many overseas military installations have hospital facilities to deal with female pregnancy. For example, Naval Station Rota, Spain, provides such services at the base naval hospital. A member of a forward deployed unit may be sent home, but in most cases if the pregnancy is known, they'll never deploy with the unit. Those doing a full tour overseas will normally have the necessary medical facilities to provide prenatal care and delivery.

Originally Posted by MW

Those doing a full tour overseas will normally have the necessary medical facilities to provide prenatal care and delivery.

True, overseas bases for full tours do have facilities for births of spouses of soldiers. Those with short-term tours not so like South Korea. They no longer send them back to the US to give birth as that has been deemed hazardous along with against the family values we still support.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

WHAT law states what a Natural Born Citizen is? What SCOTUS ruling states what a Natural Born Citizen is? Anything? Anything at all? There is absolutely NOTHING else out there that states otherwise. There is no other law that defines it differently or changes its meaning. There is no SCOTUS ruling on what a Natural Born Citizen is either. Not one single Immigration law that has passed has ever touched on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

Now I'll call it as I see it as I'm sick of hearing your nonsense MW. I don't see how possibly you are really on our side at ALIPAC but an obvious plant trying to stir trouble and cause someone to say something completely hateful or actually racist to try and pin us as a hate group. So much of your commentary has been half truths and from a heavy uneducated liberal standpoint and this is coming from a former Dem Voter (now independent) who had enough with our country being sold out. Your clearly not one of us and clearly a plant.

ReformUSA2012,

Our volunteer moderators have met and have concurred that you did violate ALIPAC's rule #2 which states "Conflicts: No personal attacks, threatening language, or personal information on the board. Calling other users names or attacking others will not be tolerated."

ALIPAC Rules
ALIPAC Rules for Discussion Groups Area

Due to our notice published Feb 7, 2016 we are suspending your posting privileges at ALIPAC.us for a minimum of 30 days. We are sorry we have to take these steps, but our rules must be enforced.

ALIPAC's Rule Violation Warning Notice
Rules Review: Automatic 30 Day Suspension for Next Person that breaks a rule

You may return to posting at ALIPAC after March 11, 2016 but any further rule violations will result in permanent suspension. We understand that ALIPAC activists are very passionate about their views, but those views and discussions must be conducted in a way consistent with the rules our community forged among our members.

You can disagree and debate without resorting to personal insults and attacks on other allied activists.

William Gheen
www.alipac.us

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

ReformUSA2012,

Our volunteer moderators have met and have concurred that you did violate ALIPAC's rule #2 which states "Conflicts: No personal attacks, threatening language, or personal information on the board. Calling other users names or attacking others will not be tolerated."

...

Due to our notice published Feb 7, 2016 we are suspending your posting privileges at ALIPAC.us for a minimum of 30 days. We are sorry we have to take these steps, but our rules must be enforced.

...

You may return to posting at ALIPAC after March 11, 2016 but any further rule violations will result in permanent suspension. We understand that ALIPAC activists are very passionate about their views, but those views and discussions must be conducted in a way consistent with the rules our community forged among our members.

You can disagree and debate without resorting to personal insults and attacks on other allied activists.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. What ReformUSA said was not a personal attack or insult. Also, the enforcement of rules on this board clearly has a political edge to it. I cite my own example when I warned about using the term "cockroach" in reference to Cruz -- admittedly extreme, and I regret the use of the word, but not the sentiment. In the warning issued to me, I was personally attacked, accused of being a Clinton supporter on absolutely no evidence and in direct contradiction to what I had actually posted.

And also, using the word cockroach to describe a political candidate is in no way a violation of the rules that I see. If I had used the same word to describe Obama, would I have been censored the same way? I doubt it.

This is a private forum and the administrators can run it any way they want to. But these two examples deserve criticism and this is the place to do it.

Here are the rules for this forum.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

It doesn't say anything about IF or WHEN either of his parents ever became citizens. That's why I said someone better check him out.

You know, I'm going to guess without looking into it that in the times that Sanders parents immigrated, way back in the early nineteen hundreds, that naturalization was a formal part of the immigration process. You could be rejected at the border for immigration. And so, his parents were probably made citizens as they stepped onto US soil.

Time certainly have changed, haven't they?

2/12/16

Trump threatens to sue Cruz for 'not being a natural born citizen'

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Yah but the sh*t part at this time is the SCOTUS won't rule the right way or they would invalidate Obama completely which we all know they won't be willing to do. To invalidate Obama would be to undo everything he has done or even touched unless the next President wanted to sign off on all of it. It would create such a disaster at this point (which I'd be willing to put up with honestly) that the SCOTUS won't go doing what they should. Further a ruling on what a Natural Born Citizen is that doesn't favor Obama would right off remove 2 SCOTUS justices and they won't be recusing themselves from the case due to that and they won't be voting against Obama as well.

Congress would have to pass an Act of Congress declaring its understanding of what a NBC is and the GOP and DNC have to much to lose if they do the right thing.

I want to agree with "ReformUSA" that yes, Obama is not legitimate! All of his acts as President are null and void. And they should be voided! He needs to be stricken from the record books and shamed--along with the traitorous Democrat Party. The Republican Party and Romney all showed themselves Cowards! How can anyone run a country that is full of cowards, I do not know. It is a disgusting mess!

I found another lawyer, philosopher, a Selwyn Duke, a lady who has done an indepth study on the Natural Born Clause in the Constitution. Her conclusions and research are here:

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...zen-explained/

Neither Cruz nor Rubio are Natural Born citizens.