Posted on 02/10/2016 8:13:15 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
There's a clean question on the table regarding dual citizenship for persons born in Canada prior to 1977 (when they changed their law to officially recognize dual nationality.)
Prior to that date, with few exceptions, you could not hold dual nationality with Canada. In other words the very act of "renouncing" Canadian Citizenship means that Cruz never held US citizenship at birth because his parents had to declare his nationality at the time he was born.
There may be exceptions that were available at the time but the law now is immaterial.
The only material fact is what the law was then, in 1970, in Canada when Cruz was born.
If his parents declared US for him then he had nothing to renounce and he has a document called a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.
This is the legal equivalent of a US Birth Certificate and Cruz either has one from the time of his birth or he does not. If he does not then he is not a US Citizen as he was never naturalized by his own admission and at birth the nation in which he was born did not recognize dual nationality.
Where is that document Cruz? Your mother's birth certificate is immaterial. What matters is whether you were declared a Canadian or US Citizen at birth and what documentation you have to prove it.
You see, in 1970 there was no "and" option.
Cruz either has that Consular Report of Birth Abroad, which is his legal proof of US Citizenship just as my Birth Certificate is mine, or he doesn't and he's not a citizen at all as his parents declared his citizenship as Canadian and the land he were born in prohibited dual nationality at the time.
If he doesn't have that document, of course, there's a little problem with the office Senator Cruz holds now, say much less his running for President.
“...and has his other records sealed.”
That is a lie that has been disproven repeatedly. State Department records like that are automatically exempt from FOIA requests, because the information they contain could be used to steal identities, etc. Cruz never had the records sealed - they are that way by law for everyone.
It doesn’t compare. Trump wasn’t born in china. Trump doesn’t have a Chinese birth certificate and say he was and had all those things. I’d say he was ineligible.
Huh? So you are dodging the question I see. So that does really answer it ;-)
LOL, the information they contain could be used to steal identities. I’m ROFLMBO over this. How long ago was it that the government computers were hacked? We are talking about BCs, etc. You are clueless, so please don’t reply to me on this thread again.
[[So, if at birth Cruz was a US citizen, it had to be noted somewhere in some official document. And Cruz has never produced a Consulate Record of Birth. Does he have one?]]
Doesn’t need one- His mother was a sovereign citizen of the US- that is enough- the following is a post of mine from another thread on this very topic
some people are making the claim that any kind of citizenship which involves a ‘statute’ means the person is naturalized, but this simply isn’t true- congress was given power to make laws regarding naturalizing aliens, but it was also given the power to define who doesn’t need to be naturalized as well- and based on the laws of common descent/natural law, they determined that because citizenship passes from a sovereign citizen to their child, that one parent sovereign us citizen is enough for this natural law to apply, with some exceptions, mainly having to do with the child establishing a bond with the us citizen parent- this is why we see the exception of 1409 which was a law regarding unwed parents, and where a father had to meet certain requirements in order to basically prove a dna connection and or bond with the child-
While a child is a minor, their allegiance is the same as their parent’s it descends from their parent- when the child comes of age, they can choose their own allegiance (expatriate themselves through a process) if they so choose to or remain a US citizen, but until then their allegiance is that of their us sovereign parent
Some folks make the claim that if a person has to apply for a CRBA in order to travel out of the country, then they can’t be a citizen- and must be naturalized- however that is not what the usicis site says on the matter- they state
[[ D. Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600)
A person born abroad who acquires U.S. citizenship at birth is not required to file an Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600). A person who seeks documentation of such status, however, must submit an application to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship from USCIS.]]
It further states that just because someone doesn’t file for CoC, (form N-600) doesn’t mean they aren’t a full citizen, it infact states that they do not have to go through a naturalization process
[[A person born abroad who acquires a U.S. citizenship at birth is not required to file an Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600). A person who seeks documentation of such status, however, must submit an application to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship from USCIS. A person may also apply for a U.S. Passport with the Department of State to serve as evidence of his or her U.S. citizenship.
A person who is at least 18 years of age may submit the Application for Certificate of Citizenship on his or her own behalf. If the application is for a child who has not reached 18 years of age, the child’s U.S. citizen parent or legal guardian must submit the application.]]
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html
Notice at the end it states it is only to serve as further evidence of citizenship- there is nothing that states that in order to be a citizen, one must have this form
Also, [[In addition, in 2000, Congress granted automatic citizenship to most minor children of American parents who were adopted from abroad; previously such adopted children needed to be naturalized.]]]]
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/citizen.aspx#2
you’ll note that adopted children do not have to be naturalized any longer- (but still people will try to make the argument that previously they had to be, and now they don’t because of a statute, and anytime there is a statute it means it is a process of law, and not natural- in essence, they don’t accept the law as it stands regarding citizenship)
yes it does.
So you are stuck on your own ‘definition’ of the law.
Have you ever considered that the DemnocRATS have a different ‘definition’ of the law than yours?
Sure you don’t care what they say/think, but don’t you care that they (including the supreme court) will apply their own definition and disqualify/remove your chosen candidate?
Are you going to argue with them that they are wrong because YOU COULDN’T CARE LESS ABOUT the laws of Canada or any other countries where your candidate was born, or countries whose citizen your candidate’s mother/father was?
Wouldn’t it be wiser to address this issue NOW, so the opponents have no chance to disqualify your candidate later? Or are you afraid your candidate will lose in court?
No, sorry to disappoint you - I am not Chris Christi. I am just a person who abides by the constitution 100%.
All I am saying is U.S. law governs the U.S. citizenship status of U.S. citizens and the laws of other countries do not govern the U.S. citizenship status of U.S. citizens. U.S. law could make that status conditional, requiring some form of renunciation of any other citizenship in order for the U.S. citizenship to apply, but it doesn't. So yes, I am going to argue with them that they are wrong if they think U.S. citizenship status is determined by the laws of some other country. (Arlen Spector may reference Scottish law, but that doesn't mean I have to reference Canadian law.)
Have you ever considered that the DemnocRATS have a different ‘definition’ of the law than yours?
I have referenced the law several times. I have linked to the law. You can go to my profile, click "In Forum" and go find the law and read it for yourself. I know the 'Rats like to define things by their feelings, but if we're going to let that determine our actions we should just surrender now and vote for Bernie (unless Stalin comes back to life and enters the race.)
Wouldn’t it be wiser to address this issue NOW, so the opponents have no chance to disqualify your candidate later? Or are you afraid your candidate will lose in court?
I don't think any court will take it at this time, the candidate is kind of busy, and both McCain and Obama have settled the NBC=citizen at birth issue.
No, sorry to disappoint you - I am not Chris Christi. I am just a person who abides by the constitution 100%.
OK, now I know of two people named Chris from NJ, one of whom abides by the constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.