Guns Owners of America Endorses Ted Cruz for President

[Acala]

Pratt has a history of mixing immigration into GOA's agenda. They aren't supposed to be an anti-immigration group. But they really are. He has even vocally and unapologetically opposed recognizing the rights of non-citizens to keep and bear arms. As far as he's concerned, that right is actually just a privilege granted to citizens by the Constitution.

Yup. When I found this out I started throwing their mail in the trash. Stick to the issue I am paying you for!

 

[Acala]

Probably because numerous illegals are killing Americans at alarming rates. They come here as felons, knowing they are breaking the law getting here. So, one can surmise that most ILLEGAL's are criminals to begin with. So killing your kid or mine, doesn't bother them at all.

Be sure you separate legal immigrants and illegal immigrants (those who break into your home and steal every dime they can from you).

Even if this were true, it still doesn't make sense for a gun-rights group. Should they opine on education and health care and monetary policy too? They need to stick to the issue.

 

[kahless]

Even if this were true, it still doesn't make sense for a gun-rights group. Should they opine on education and health care and monetary policy too? They need to stick to the issue.

It is pretty clear why they had to do this and I do not blame them.

He has opposed efforts to reward millions of illegal aliens with citizenship and voting rights, given that the majority of them are anti-gunners who have ignored and flouted our laws.

^All the polls and research shows this to be true.

With Rand as POTUS you can kiss your guns go by years after he leaves office if he is not stopped by Congress from providing a pathway to citizenship to illegals and legals. Rand is no different from any other Republican in that respect. I am no fan of Cruz but his immigration stance in that respect cannot be ignored regardless of his policy of increasing H1B immigration.

 

[erowe1]

^All the polls and research shows this to be true.

Source?

I find it odd that he mentions that they have ignored and flouted our laws. Shouldn't GOA consider that a positive trait?

 

[kahless]

Source?

I find it odd that he mentions that they have ignored and flouted our laws. Shouldn't GOA consider that a positive trait?

How many threads do I have to go through this. Here are these for now, I have more that I can find from my earlier posts.

https://www.gunowners.org/alert1242013.htm
Immigration reform will add over 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls. There may be as many as 11.5 million persons illegally in the United States. And, a Pew poll from last year indicated that if illegal immigrants were given citizenship, they would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin.

Poll: Latino Illegal Immigrants Favor Dems 8-to-1
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/07/22/poll-illegal-immigrants-democrat/

 

[TaftFan]

That is a lie commonly shared by Cruz and Cruz supporters. The fact is this 1790 legislation was repealed just 5 years later during the Presidency of George Washington in 1795. The 'Natural Born Citizen' wording was stricken from the legislation. With the 1795 legislation, children born abroad to US citizen parents were now only entitled to citizenship. From 1795 through today, children born abroad, such as Cruz, must look to naturalization statutes of Immigration laws to retain US citizenship. It doesn't matter if he was born to 1 US citizen parent or 2. Ted Cruz is a citizen through naturalization. His citizenship was retained only through Congressional action, can be revoked by Congress through statute, and is not covered by the 14th Amendments definition of a "citizen born or naturalized within the US". Anyone who cites this 1790 legislation to affirm the eligibility of Cruz is purposefully or unknowingly misrepresenting the law.

I'm not arguing based on the law. I am an original intent constitutionalist. The 1790 law is the strongest evidence of original intent. Yes, the natural born citizen portion was stricken. But it wasn't replaced. In fact, the phrase "natural born citizen" has never again been written into U.S. law.

 

[notsure]

So you don't actually know that he was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.

Yes, I do know that he wasn't actually a US citizen at birth. According to law, he was an alien to the US at birth; and according to his birth certificate he retained Canadian citizenship at birth. The public at large will never know when Ted Cruz became a US citizen until he releases documentation that proves his parents met statutory requirements and that the US State Dept. reviewed his case and granted him with US citizenship. If Ted Cruz had any of these documents, I don't know why he'd only release his Canadian birth certificate and not any of these official, legal, US documents.

 

[notsure]

Cruz is not a "naturalized" American citizen. Naturalization by definition is the process by which a non-citizen becomes a citizen. Cruz was never a non-citizen. He was born an American. US Statute has always determined citizenship rules. So called "birthright citizenship" in 1868 eliminated the need to write specific legislation covering anyone born in the USA, but the Congress still determines who is and isn't a citizen in terms of Americans born abroad. Obama for example, would not have been a US Citizen had he been born in Canada (or Kenya). Cruz though, did meet the statutory obligations. He was an American by birth and he'd have to renounce his American citizenship in order to change his status as far as America is concerned (and this is not a trivial issue either since the tax implications of being an American are sometimes a pain in the ass- Boris Johnson, a British citizen and the mayor of London, has an accidental US Citizenship that he never asked for and the IRS has hit him up with tax bills because of it).

Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen. As you've said, " Naturalization by definition is the process by which a non-citizen becomes a citizen". Ted Cruz did have to go through a process before retaining US citizenship and he should have legal documents to back his claims to US citizenship. You said " Cruz though, did meet the statutory obligations."; but what evidence do you have of that? He's released only his Canadian birth certificate which is not a legal US document, and has not released any proof that his mother met statutory requirements and that the State Dept. did indeed grant him with US citizenship. That's beside the point though. Ted Cruz may very well be eligible to US citizenship at or after birth (but before the statutory age limit). However, he is only made a citizen through statutes of Immigration and Nationality Acts. No Natural Born Citizen would have to look to Immigration laws to retain US citizenship; only naturalized citizens such as Ted Cruz.

Supreme Court Justices in Rogers v Bellei concluded that Bellei, like Cruz born to a US citizen mother and alien father abroad on foreign soil, were only afforded US citizenship because of Congressional action or Congressional generosity, that their citizenship could be revoked by Congress through statute, that they did go through a naturalization process, and that they were not covered by the 14th Amendments definition of a "person born or naturalized in the United States..".

US Citizenship and Immigration Services have held on several occasions, in similar instances, that:
""When there is a claim of citizenship . . . one born abroad is presumed to be an alien and must go forward with evidence to establish his claim to United States citizenship." Matter of Tijerina-Villarreal, 13 I&N Dec.327, 330 (BIA 1969) (citations omitted)

If his citizenship is derived solely through naturalization acts of the Immigration law, than how can you say he's not a naturalized citizen? And what proof is there that his parents even met the requirements of the law to to retain US citizenship for him?

 

[notsure]

I'm not arguing based on the law. I am an original intent constitutionalist. The 1790 law is the strongest evidence of original intent. Yes, the natural born citizen portion was stricken. But it wasn't replaced. In fact, the phrase "natural born citizen" has never again been written into U.S. law.

Are you a Cruz supporter, because you sound like many of the Cruz supporters that I constantly argue with who twist law and logic to say Ted is eligible. The 'Natural Born Citizen' clause was stricken and yes, REPLACED, in the 1795 Naturalization Act. As you can see, from the pictures I provided, that 'NBC' was replaced with 'citizen' and this legislation became apart of and known as "an act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization". If Congress changed the law to only consider these children born abroad "citizens" and no longer "natural born citizens", then why weren't similar changes made to ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 of the US Constituion? If the Founders or Congress at the time had intended for these children born abroad to be Natural Born US Citizens, then why was that phrase alone eliminated entirely in the 1795 Naturalization Act?

1790 legislation has no legal bearing, as you've admitted I think, and carries no more of an "original intent" than the 1795 legislation. The 1790 legislation was repealed only 5 years later, under the Presidency of George Washington, while many of the Founders were still alive. How many more Founders became President after the 1795 Naturalization Act, and yet still none of them or anyone in the Legislature reverted back to this 1790 definition for children born abroad? The 1790 legislation does not represent the original intent of the Founders, it more likely represents an error of Congress at the time; one that was fixed just 5 years later. Where the Constituion gives Congress the authority to establish naturalization codes for admitting foreigners into US citizenship, this and Ted Cruz's claim to citizenship fall under that provision.

The phrase "NBC" was never written into law again because it is common sense and to be understood as such that a "NBC" is one who is born on US soil. There was never any need to establish standards for "Natural Born Citizens" or to mention it in legislation.

Even in the very eligibility clause itself (ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5) the Founders used both the terms "Natural Born Citizen" and "Citizen", so the Founders and the Congress at the time knew there was a difference between the two terms and made the point to differentiate between the two.

 

[notsure]

I've known ever since 2012, when Cruz ran for Senator and endorsed Rick Perry over Ron Paul, that Cruz was a wolf in sheeps clothing acting as an anti-establishment candidate riding off the back of the Tea Party only to spoil the next Presidential race for the real Liberty caucus. Ted Cruz is the major threat for Rand and the Liberty caucus; not Bush or Christie or Trump or anyone else. The establishments goal to counter the Ron Paul Revolution is being played out with Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is the manufactured anti-establishment candidate being used to breakup the liberty caucus and the original intent of this Tea Party thing. Why some of you go out of your way to defend his eligibility, despite law or logic, is a mystery to me. I whole-heartedly welcome the debate; but some you just want to defy law and common sense.

 

[kahless]

I've known ever since 2012, when Cruz ran for Senator and endorsed Rick Perry over Ron Paul, that Cruz was a wolf in sheeps clothing acting as an anti-establishment candidate riding off the back of the Tea Party only to spoil the next Presidential race for the real Liberty caucus. Ted Cruz is the major threat for Rand and the Liberty caucus; not Bush or Christie or Trump or anyone else. The establishments goal to counter the Ron Paul Revolution is being played out with Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is the manufactured anti-establishment candidate being used to breakup the liberty caucus and the original intent of this Tea Party thing. Why some of you go out of your way to defend his eligibility, despite law or logic, is a mystery to me. I whole-heartedly welcome the debate; but some you just want to defy law and common sense.

^Thread winner. The establishment needed some way to herd people away from Rand and that was through their boy Cruz.

 

[Liberty74]

Don't think they will change much. Cruz's entire strategy at this point seems to be centered around hoping something happens that causes Trump to implode. If that happens, then he has a good shot at picking up the bulk of his voters.

Didn't Cruz already rise in Iowa and fall somewhat like Rubio? Maybe NH too? Last NH poll I saw I remember Paul being ahead of Cruz and others.

The national polls are just that. It's Iowa and NH that will shape the race. It always is and those two state polls vary from the national polls, do they not?

 

[erowe1]

Yes, I do know that he wasn't actually a US citizen at birth. According to law, he was an alien to the US at birth

Can you cite this law?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Cruz is clear on never wanting the former/illegals to vote. He told Hannity in 2013 that Rand's pathway to Greencard is a pathway to a pathway to citizenship.

And not deporting them is a pathway to a greencard, which is a pathway to citizenship.

And not executing them and dumping them in a mass grave is a pathway to not deporting them, which is a pathway to a greencard, which is a pathway to citizenship!

No amnesty!

 

[navy-vet]

How many threads do I have to go through this. Here are these for now, I have more that I can find from my earlier posts.

Poll: Latino Illegal Immigrants Favor Dems 8-to-1
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/07/22/poll-illegal-immigrants-democrat/

TOUCHE'

 

[phill4paul]

Missed this. Didn't take them long to go from Washington outsiders to Washington cocksucker lobbyists. The kicker is they still have Ron's quote on their site...."The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." - Ron Paul.

Fuck 'em. Membership ended.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Most abortions come from low income families, single mothers, and minorities. 58,000,000 abortions have been carried out since 1973 in America. Assuming that 50,000,000 of them were still alive, 30,000,000 of them were adults, half voted, and they voted 75% democrat it would add 3.75 million Republicans and 11.25 million Democrats. Had those 58,000,000 not been aborted, they would have had another 50,000,000 children and grand children by now, millions of whom would be old enough to vote.

You would likely have 10 million extra Democratic voters on net with legalized abortion since 1973. By this logic, they need to go after prolife candidates too, given that aborted babies are far more numerical than illegal immigrants, more likely to vote (only 40% of Hispanics vote), and more likely to vote democrat.