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.
Yep, I keep waiting for donnie to pony up to the bar and file his suit. Of course, I now do not think he has the balls for it or maybe he would rather ride the lie a little longer.
There is a basic problem with the author’s argument. While it is true that up until 1977 Canada did not allow dual citizenship, that only applied to naturalized citizens. In other words, if you moved there as a US citizen and wanted to become a Canadian citizen, you had to renounce your US citizenship first. After 1977, that was no longer necessary.
However, Canada considered Ted Cruz a Canadian citizen because he was born there, and the US considered him a US citizen because his mother was a US citizen. The Canadian law had no effect on US citizenship and vice versa. So whether or not Canadian law recognized dual citizenship at the time is meaningless - we don’t allow other countries to determine who is and is not a US citizen.
Of course that law may be why Cruz didn’t realize he was actually also a Canadian citizen until later - since he was a US citizen by birth, and at the time Canadian law did not recognize dual citizenship, why would he need to renounce a citizenship that Canada didn’t recognize?
It's the exact opposite: If it requires legislation by congress under their power to create laws of naturalization, then, even if you are born a citizen, it is the opposite of a natural born citizen, who would always be what he is regardless of any legislation.
Frankly I look forward to a concrete decision on this. Clarification if you want. Something binding and can put this to rest. I am sorry I am too thick headed to just take your word and point as gospel.
Also your analogy really doesn’t work it’s a hypothesis contrary to fact. A what if fallacy if you will.
Yes, most do not. I saw the applicable Canadian law from 1970 because someone posted it on one of the threads here a few days ago. It stated that anyone born in Canada is a natural born Canadian citizen at that time. I was born in Spain to a US military couple and I have 3 kids who were born in Germany in the 1980s. I had to get a CRBA from the embassy for my kids to be recognized as US citizens and issued passports. My parents had to do the same for me in Spain in 1960. I wonder if Cruz’s parents filed a CRBA on him?
And the section of the Constitution where it is defined?
It doesn't really matter, since no matter what definition you use that was extant during the time of the founders, none vindicate Ted Cruz.
Unless he was naturalized after birth, I assume you have no proof he was, the fact that he is a US citizen can only mean he was at birth. If citizen at birth isn't natural born, then what is it?
The US would not know he was a citizen unless his parents filed a CRBA on him when He was born. That is the purpose of that form, to regiater US citizenship for somebody who is born in another country. My parents had to do one on me when I was born and I had to do one on my kids born in Germany.
Your prerogative. Just like it is my prerogative to not vote for Trump because he is neither Conservative nor a Republican. I assume there are others who will not be OK with voting for a slick New York Democrat for President.
Where is "speech" defined? Where is "arms"?
Unless he was naturalized after birth
By definition, if congress has to pass legislation to make you a citizen at birth, then you are a naturalized citizen, even at birth. Congress only has powers over naturalization. It has no power over natural born citizens.
I assume you are correct. We will see how it all shakes out.
“because I declared him so at birth”
Nope. You informed the Consulate of a fact. You did not create the fact by reporting the fact.
And??? The CRBA does not make one a citizen - it just records the event, like a birth certificate. Someone born in the US that is not issued a birth certificate is still a citizen. Someone born outside the US to a US citizen is still a citizen even if the CRBA is not filed. The filing just makes it easier to prove that fact.
Ok, if the democrats will eat him alive then why should you care. The democrats candidate, Hillary, will be in jail and Cruz will be deported to Canada. So the VP candidates will then be the candidates for Prez. So now who will those two be? Just for fun. BTW. If Trump is so concerned, he would have a duty to file a law suit to get Cruz kicked out of the way. Don’t you just love the idiots that keep chasing their tails?
Thanks for admitting your definition is not in the Constitution.
By definition, if congress has to pass legislation to make you a citizen at birth, then you are a naturalized citizen, even at birth.
Excellent. So where does it say a citizen at birth is naturalized?
I’d rather have a Conservative born in Canada then a Liberal born in Illinois or New York! (Or Kenya)
You’re kidding yourself if you think I don’t have reservations about “the Donald.” But the post was interesting enough on its own merits that I brought it here to see others’ thoughts on it.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Thanks for admitting that your point is irrational :-). Your argument is insanely stupid.
God told Ted Cruz to run for president. How are you going to argue against that.
God didn’t tell Donald Trump to run for president, who does Trump he think he is? ;-)
‘Here am I Lord, use me’: Ted Cruz’s dad says Holy Ghost authorized White House run
Karl Denninger is wrong. I heard Mark Levin prove it one night when someone called in and brought up Cruz’s citizenship. Levin yelled at him: “Get off my phone, you big dope!” and hung up on him.
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.