Good Grief: Trump Chimes In On Cruz Birtherism

There’s a reason it’s called the Silly Season

(Washington Post) Donald Trump said in an interview that rival Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace was a “very precarious” issue that could make the senator from Texas vulnerable if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump said when asked about the topic. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”

Trump added: “I’d hate to see something like that get in his way. But a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport.”

To be perfectly clear, the facepalm is for Trump. And for those who will bring up Trump being an Obama Birther, let’s not forget that it was started by Team Hillary supporters.

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz has released a video that has horrified the Credentialed Media

Wisely, this frames the debate in economic and legal terms. He’s said it before: what if illegals were coming across the border and taking the jobs of non-low wage citizens? Think there would be an outcry? What if they were taking the jobs of politicians?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Good Grief: Trump Chimes In On Cruz Birtherism”

  1. dualer says:

    Cruz in naturalized, not natural born (Naturalized at birth by 8 US Code 1401(g)), thus NOT eligible (capable of being elected)

    Case filed, and seved in Ft. Lauderdale Circuit Civil seeking Injunction on his and Rubio’s (also naturalized, by 8 US Code 1401(a)) name from being on the 3/15/16 primary ballot.

    Please get a clue about the Constitution if you wish to be called a “constitutionalist”.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/293623437/Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgment-and-Injunction-50

    Cruz is a fraud, trying to validate the Presidency of the Usurper Obama.

  2. No intellectually honest people doubt Cruz’s eligibility to run for president.

    I am a Cruz guy -and not a Trump hater- but this one looks kinda desperate,
    perhaps the Donald is worried about losing Iowa with an increasingly competitive NH after that.

    He’d be in trouble going into SC then… depends how long his supporters would be willing to wait for all the ‘winning’ to start

  3. Sorry, actual law and court decisions disagree with you and that suit, dualer. He was born to American parents, not naturalized.

  4. dualer says:

    Which actual law? (you haven’t said anything).

    This actual law? SCOTUS holding:

    “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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1875) and repeated by Wong Kim Ark, 169, US 649, @680 (1898) 23 years later.

    Naturalization is the “conferring of nationality by any means whatsoever.” (INS 1932)
    Ted Cruz was conferred citizenship by an act of Congress, 8 US Code 1401(g), therefore he is naturalized. He would not even have been considered a US Citizen if born before 1934 in the same circumstance, therefore he is only considered a US Citizen today by the power of Congress to enact uniform immigration and naturalization law, ergo he is naturalized.

    Obviously you didn’t read the suit.

  5. dualer says:

    Iowa means nothing. Didn’t Huckabee win Iowa before?

    You are no “constitutionalist” if you support the fraud Cruz, who is only there to validate the Presisdency of the Usurper Obama.

    You of course make no legal argument.

    Cruz is naturalized.

  6. Jeffery says:

    From the linked FactCheck article:

    Two Republican presidential candidates claim the so-called “birther” movement originated with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008. While it’s true that some of her ardent supporters pushed the theory, there is no evidence that Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with it.

    Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and a Cuban father. He’s a creepy guy and would make a horrible president but he’s certainly eligible. The only surprising thing about Trump’s slur is that it took him so long to utter it.

    McCain was born in Panama to two citizens; Obama in Hawaii to a citizen mother and a non-citizen father. All eligible.

  7. Jeffery says:

    I see nothing wrong with the Cruz ad. We absolutely regulate immigration/licensure of doctors, lawyers, architects, scientists, accountants and executives while not only allowing laborers in but also shipping manufacturing jobs overseas!

  8. xtron says:

    if all those illegal immigrants were future republican voters, the national gaurd would be patrolling the boarder next week

  9. Rob says:

    It’s 3D chess. Trump is saying there are questions and threats of lawsuits. True. The Dem Congressman from Florida has said on the record he will challenge eligibility in court. {Grayson} I’ve seen anti-Cruz folks on the right saying this since he announced, … so the issue is out there. So Trump forces it forward right before Iowa.. serves two purposes… may deny Cruz Iowa, but maybe not. Also gives Cruz avenue to address this, even through the court, but to address it now and not this summer.

  10. Dana says:

    “Dueler” seems to think that Marco Rubio isn’t eligible, because his parents were Cuban refugees. Mr Rubio was born in Miami, in the United States, and is therefore a citizen from birth, a natural born citizen, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

    The “birthers” seem to think that you cannot be a natural born citizen, even if you are born in the United States, if your parents weren’t citizens.

  11. Dana says:

    I usually find the birthers in the same place as the other conspiracy theorists, the ones who tell us that the evil Rothschilds have a $500 trillion fortune, when the GDP of the entire world is only $76 trillion.

  12. Jeffery says:

    Liberals are bemused by the right’s twists and turns on this issue.

    Obama: Born in US. Mother- US citizen. Father- Kenyan/Brit.
    There existed a serious effort on the right (including especially Donald Trump)to prove that Obama was not eligible to be President, and was not “really” American; he is not one of “us”.

    McCain: Born in Panama. Both parents- US citizens.

    Cruz: Born in Canada. Mother- US citizen. Father- Cuban.

    Rubio: Born in US. Neither parent were US citizens.

    The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.”

    According to the Congressional Research Service all these men qualify as “natural born citizens”.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

    Although, the first nine US Presidents were born before the US was a nation, Rafael (Ted) Cruz WOULD be the first US President to be born outside what is now these United States.

    So… if Obama had been born in Kenya to a US citizen mother and a non-citizen father (exact parallel to Cruz), what would the right-wing response have been? If Cruz becomes the nominee will the right-wing birther crowd go after him like they did the arguably more “natural born citizen” Obama? LOL

  13. Well, not defending the Birthers, but there start to be a few arcane laws regarding “natural born” as eligible. For instance, the NY Times considered, after running a few “we’re just wondering” articles, that McCain was natural born because he was born in the Panama Canal zone. It starts to get into minutia about being born in certain areas. But, yes, Obama is eligible. So is Cruz. It starts to break down if we say the child of two foreign nationals, whether legally in the US or illegally, is “natural born”. There have been issues raised per law about the child of, say, two US citizens who have a child in, say, a German hospital. Is the child “natural born”? Not born in US or on US property.

    It really needs to be truly defined, though, of course, it rarely comes up.

  14. Jeffery says:

    It starts to break down if we say the child of two foreign nationals, whether legally in the US or illegally, is “natural born”.

    … which describes Rubio, doesn’t it? Is Rubio and anchor baby??

    There have been issues raised per law about the child of, say, two US citizens who have a child in, say, a German hospital.

    … which would impact Cruz, who was born to ONLY one US citizen in a Canadian hospital.

    Obama (US born to US citizen mom) looks downright Sons of the Revolution compared to those two!

    What a difference 8 years makes to the Republicans.

    Maybe it’s time for the right-wing birthers to ‘fess up and admit that their issues with Obama were personal and political, not legal or Constitutional.

    Can any conservative explain why they claimed Obama was ineligible while Cruz and Rubio, both whom are “less” American than the President, are eligible?

    Your answer should include the words Democrat, Republican, partisan, liberal, conservative and may include Black, although that’s not necessary.

  15. dualer says:

    “Well, not defending the Birthers, but there start to be a few arcane laws regarding “natural born” as eligible. For instance, the NY Times considered, after running a few “we’re just wondering” articles, that McCain was natural born because he was born in the Panama Canal zone. It starts to get into minutia about being born in certain areas. But, yes, Obama is eligible. So is Cruz. It starts to break down if we say the child of two foreign nationals, whether legally in the US or illegally, is “natural born”. There have been issues raised per law about the child of, say, two US citizens who have a child in, say, a German hospital. Is the child “natural born”? Not born in US or on US property.

    It really needs to be truly defined, though, of course, it rarely comes up”.

    Again, you are clueless. Minor v. Happersett @167, (as well as other cases) defined nbC explicitly as one born in a country of parents who are its citizens, so to say that it has never been defined is nonsense. The case of Wong Kim Ark even referred to the Minor v. Happersett definition 3 times, 23 years later and never disagreed.

    Without even defining nbC you can prove by logic that Cruz and Rubio are not nbC.

    Cruz would not have been even a US Citizen, if born in the same situation prior to 1934. Therefore he is only considered a US Citizen at birth because of Congressional naturalization law today– ergo he is NATURALIZED.

    Marco Rubio would not have been considered even a US Citizen if his birth circumstance was applied to the Naturalization Act of 1802. He would have only been considered a US Citizen upon the naturalization of his father, which occurred when Marco was 3. He is only considered a US Citizen at birth today because of Congressional naturalization law– ergo he is NATURALIZED.

    Logic defeats the lie. You are just as bad as the Obama idiots if you support Cruz.

  16. Dana says:

    Dualer wrote:

    Cruz would not have been even a US Citizen, if born in the same situation prior to 1934. Therefore he is only considered a US Citizen at birth because of Congressional naturalization law today– ergo he is NATURALIZED.

    Wrong answer: naturalization is a process through which an individual who is not a citizen goes. If a baby born outside the United States to an American citizen, at birth, due to his parent’s citizenship, he is not naturalized, but a natural born citizen.

    Marco Rubio would not have been considered even a US Citizen if his birth circumstance was applied to the Naturalization Act of 1802. He would have only been considered a US Citizen upon the naturalization of his father, which occurred when Marco was 3. He is only considered a US Citizen at birth today because of Congressional naturalization law– ergo he is NATURALIZED.

    The Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified long after the Naturalization Act of 1802, which specifies that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. That supersedes the 1802 Act.

    Logic defeats the lie.

    True enough, and it is there that you have failed the test.

  17. dualer says:

    Dana said,

    “True enough, and it is there that you have failed the test”.

    I guess that logic torqued your little brain.

    First, nbCs have always been citizens.

    Second, A2S1C5 has never been amended.

    Third, Naturalization is the “conferring of nationality by ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER.” (INS 1952(23)– a definition used by the State Dept to this day). That means it does not have to be by oath, it could be by statute, or by the Constitution itself.

    Fourth, By definition the 14th Amendment is a vehicle of naturalization– it “confers nationality” (See Afroyim v. Rusk) 8 US Code 1401 confers nationality at birth (after birth– it doesn’t occur in the birth canal or the womb), therefore it is a vehicle of naturalization. If not for that statute (8 US Code 1401(g) for Cruz, 8 US Code 1401(a) for Rubio) they would not be considered citizens— therefore they are naturalized

    If Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, born in exactly the same circumstances, would not have been considered even citizens at the time they were born, then they must be citizens by naturalization, as A2S1C5 has never been amended. Cruz would not have been a citizen at birth in 1933 and Rubio would not have been a citizen at birth in 1802.

    Fifth, if 8 US Code 1401 defined who is a natural born Citizen, then Congress could illegally amend A2S1C5 at will by adding to the statutory status of “citizen at birth”.

  18. Jeffery says:

    Oh oh! Cruz’s mother was found to be a registered voter in Canada! Only Canadian citizens can vote. Is it possible she renounced her US citizenship at some time?

    Cruz already has more legitimate questions about his eligibility than Obama ever did.

    Plus, Cruz is short, slimy and creepy.

  19. Jeffery says:

    Can you explain why conservatives are so blasé regarding Rafael (Ted) Cruz’s eligibility (born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father) but were so exercised regarding President Obama’s eligibility (born in the US to an American mother and Kenyan father)?

    Remember how on fire the conservablogs were about President Obama having a Kenyan father? Remember? And not just far-right cultists like the odious jimhoft and William, but FOX giants like Sean Hannity and the current head of the GOP, Donald Trump!

    At least Trump is being consistent, if not more than a little self-serving, by bringing up the GOPs Cruz problem.

    Anyone who thought President Obama was ineligible is the worst of the worst hypocrite if they don’t proclaim Cruz ineligible. Period.

    Ready to admit the birth certificate outrage was just political theater? Bueller? Bueller?

    Crickets.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5107 access attempts in the last 7 days.