U.S. Citizen Born Abroad: Consular Record “Is My Birth Certificate”

Post & Email ^ | May 2, 2016 | Sharon Rondeau

[GBA]

Seriously? That's the best you've got?

1) We have evidence that she was a US Citizen

"Was". They left for Canada, started a business and made family there. That sounds "Canadian" enough to me.

She and toddler Felito emigrated to the US only when/because husband bailed on the family and left them in Canada.

2) We know that the residency laws of Canada required 5 years of residence prior to being accepted as a Canadian citizen.

Okay, so show me that info. I won't believe you until you show it to me. For all I know, you're making that up.

3) No evidence has been supplied that she became a Canadian Citizen.

She moved away and made a family with her foreign husband in Canada. Common Sense raises questions with your "no evidence" claim.

You're not Ted Cruz, are you, so you can't prove it one way or another.

The paperwork exists. Let's see it.

4) No evidence has been supplied that she ever renounced her US citizenship as required by USC Title 8 section 1481.

She left and started a business and made a family with her foreign husband in Canada. Common Sense raises questions with your "no evidence" claim.

Again...you're not Ted Cruz, are you, so you can't prove it one way or another.

The paperwork exists. Let's see it.

You are saying "Trust" but then you forget the "but verify" part.

I say, "ef that and the Trojan horse it rode in on."

I haven't gotten to "trust", yet.

How about we start with "verify", instead?

Proof. Got any?

The paperwork exists. Let's see it.

[DiogenesLamp]

137. Referring to “the inadvertent use of the term natural-born in the Act of 1790,” one author averred that “it was Mr. Madison who had participated in the drafting of the Constitution who had discovered the error and authorized the bill to correct it by deleting the term from the act of 1795.” 113 CONG. REC. 15,879 (1967) (quoting Hon. Pinkney G. McElwee). See Duggin & Collins, supra note 135, at 7879.

Thanks for that, but if there are any "Madison words" describing the event, I would certainly like to know where they might be found.

The idea of sticking "natural born" into the act is silly from both an English common law perspective, and from a Vattel based perspective.

Neither system would recognize naturalized children born in a foreign jurisdiction as "natural" or "natural born" citizens. The only exception of which I am aware is Vattel's point regarding the children of citizens serving in military forces abroad.

[higgmeister]

It will take me a little longer to find the links to the notes of the First and Third Congresses that makes the specific statement of the error of the transcription clerk that included the Natural Born phrase.

That would be greatly appreciated. The idea of slogging through a document with at least 334 pages does not fill me with joy.

This document suggests it was one Congressman Edamus Burke of South Carolina that made the error instead of the clerk although it still may be a mistaken instruction to a clerk. I am still looking for the link to the contemporaneous notes of Congress with the actual text of the discussion. http://natural-borncitizens.com/nbcfiles/nbc_McElwee.pdf

---

The Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103) provides in pp 104: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the seas, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” In Osborn v. Bank, 22 US (9 Wheat) 738, l.c. 827, Chief Justice Marshall said: “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an Act of Congress, but the Act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as regards the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstance under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” Thus the Act of March 26, 1790 would be unconstitutional if it attempted to enlarge the rights of a naturalized citizen to be equal to those of natural-born citizens under the Constitution. Although it is not within the power of Congress to change or amend the Constitution by means of definitions of languages used in the Constitution so as to mean something different than intended by the framers (amendments being governed by Article V) an argument might be advanced to the effect that the use of identical language by Congress substantially contemporaneously might be 10 considered in later years by a court to reflect the same meaning of the same words by the framers of the Constitution; and under this argument to attach importance to the Act of Congress of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103). This argument fades away when it is found that this act used the term “natural born” through inadvertence which resulted from the use of the English Naturalization Act (13 Geo. III, Cap 21 (1773) as a pattern when it was deemed necessary (as stated by Van Dyne) to enact a similar law in the United States to extend citizenship to foreign-born children of American parents. In the discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives in respect to the proposed naturalization bill of a committee composed of Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania, Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina and Andrew Moore of Virginia, Mr. Edamus Burke of South Carolina stated, “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III.” (See pp 1121, Vol 1 (Feb. 4, 1790) of Annals of Congress.) The proposed bill was then recommitted to the Committee of Hartley, Tucker and Moore, and a new bill containing the provision in respect to foreign-born children of American parentage was included, using the Anglican phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Manifestly, Mr. Burke had given the wrong reference to the Act of Parliament of the 12th year of William III which was an inheritance law. But, it was a naturalization bill and the reference to the English acts shows the origin of the inadvertent error in using the term natural-born citizen instead of plain “citizen” came from copying the English Naturalization Act. Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act. The Act of 1795 provides: “The children of citizens born outside of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” In 1802, when Congress repealed entirely the law of 1790, it enacted that “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, 11 although born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States” (2 stat 153). (R.S. 1993) This was followed by the Act of 1855 (10 Stat 604) which repealed the Act of 1802. Congress, in its exclusive control of naturalization, could make any person born outside of the limits of the United States a citizen, either automatically or by pursuit of a proper court proceeding; but, it is not within the power of Congress in its control of naturalization to alter the fact of place of birth to make a foreign born child a “natural-born” citizen as described in clause 4, section 1 of Article II of the Constitution so as to become thereby eligible to become the President.

[higgmeister]

Here is a better link to the previous text.

http://www.constitution.org/abus/presidential_eligibility_george_romney_mcelwee_1967.html

Presidential eligibility of George Romney
by Pinckney G. McElwee of D.C. Bar
June 1967, The Congressional Record 6-14-1967

[taxcontrol]

Ok, I will do some of your homework for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Canadian_nationality_law

Look down to: Acquisition and loss of citizenship under the Act

Read the section: “naturalization in Canada after five years’ residence as a landed immigrant”. Note, since Mrs Cruz arrived (landed) in Canada in 1967, Cruz’s parents had lived in Calgary for three years at the time of Sen Cruz’s birth. That means it was not POSSIBLE for Sen Cruz’s mother to have acquired Canadian citizenship. Also note that opening a business in Canada is NOT qualification as Canadian citizenship.

USC Title 8 section 1481 deals with the loss of citizenship status. Nowhere in that section of code is moving to another country result in an automatic loss of citizenship.

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Children are born all over the far corners of the world to either one or two American citizens and former Americans. They are unable to stroll into the USA and claim to be American citizens later just because they feel like inclined to be one. Americans born abroad obtain the proper registration from the US consulate and present as citizens prior to a designated age. It sounds like Eleanor brought her Canadian child here and picked up where she left off nearly a decade before, sans documentation.

More importantly, this Cruz family has a story that is rife with false statements and inconsistencies as to who they were and where they were living. Looks like a like a redo from 2008, but Calgary Ted is much less exotic.

The Cruz’s were Canadians:
Most importantly, why would the Cruz’s have lied to the Provincial Election Board in Canada? It would not be worth lying about your citizenship just to be able to vote in some foreign election. If they were as Canadian residents for nearly eight or ten years, why lie and pretend to be citizens? That makes no sense. As a resident alien, that could create serious issues. It could jeopardize their status. The Cruz’s did not lie, they were Canadians. And they are listed as such, accordingly.

Eleanor did not return to the USA to have her child near her mother or sister. She gave birth in Canada. As a Canadian she had a free maternity stay with baby care in Calgary. If she was on an American, she wold have had a US insurance plan for health coverage. Eleanor would have returned back home and had the baby in the USA, covered by her American insurance plan.

They were all three Canadians- A Canadian Family.

[Radix]

My son was born in a U.S. Army hospital in Europe. I was not at the Consulate the very next day but I did take him to a Photography store before his 8th day of life. I held his head as the Passport photo was taken. I then drove a hundred miles or so to the Consulate with all the required paperwork and secured for him his Birth Certificate and completed his Passport application.

I did not actually have a Passport and so I had to use my Wife's in order to prove his citizenship. Active Duty Soldiers mostly do not have Passports.

My son spent just under 7 weeks of his life in Europe. All military people are aware of the requirements. Cruz's family clearly did not consider it important at the time for their son to hold USA citizenship.

I consider them to be foreigners at heart and most certainly Cruz is not a NBC, and therefore ineligible to ever be President.

[taxcontrol]

Wow, lots of assertions and conjecture, yet so little facts and even less proof.

Fact: We know that Sen Cruz was issued a US Passport in 1986 when he was 16/17.

Fact: Cruz’s father became a Canadian Citizen in 1973, three years after Sen Cruz’s birth.

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Got paperwork, or just conjecture and hearsay.

Again that timeline that I posted contains copies of legal documents.

You provide none.

[GBA]

Thank you for providing that information. I've read differing time required as being both 3 years and 5 years.

I will accept that his mom might have legally retained her American citizenship up to and beyond Felito's birth in Canada, but that I don't know that for certain, only that Wiki says so.

I do think it's interesting that Cruz had to give up his Canadian citizenship, which is obviously something a "born in America to American citizens" level natural born citizen would not/could not possibly be born with.

But in total honestly? Reading anything written in legal is torture and puts me in brainfreeze. None the less, as a FWIW, I found this regarding Loss of Citizenship and Dual Nationality interesting:

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, Canadian citizenship can be lost only for specific reasons listed in the statute. There are currently only three ways that Canadian citizenship may be lost:

1. failure of second-generation citizens holding citizenship on the basis of birth to Canadians themselves born outside the United States to apply to retain citizenship before reaching age 28 (inapplicable to dual nationality);

2 renunciation of citizenship; and

3 revocation of citizenship which was obtained by fraud (inapplicable to dual nationality).

One might think that taking the renunciatory oath required for U.S. naturalization would constitute a sufficient renunciation to result in a loss of Canadian citizenship. However, this is not the case. Subsection 9(1) of the Citizenship Act requires a person to formally apply to renounce Canadian citizenship. Where an application to renounce is approved, a certificate of renunciation is issued and the applicant ceases to be a citizen after the expiration of the day on which the certificate is issued or such later date as the certificate may specify.

In other words, taking the U.S. oath of allegiance will not result in a loss of Canadian citizenship. A formal application must be filed and approved before renunciation will be effective. If no formal application is made, a Canadian citizen who subsequently naturalizes in the United States will continue to be a citizen of Canada.

That part I put in bold about naturalizing in the US not canceling Canadian citizenship is interesting.

Unfortunately for "Cruz for POTUS", all you've done is further convince me that Cruz is a "Made in Canada" born Canadian who naturalized in America.

So.....what piece of paper tells the United States or anyone else that Ted Cruz is an American citizen?

I'm a natural born American citizen and I have a COLB and other paperwork to verify that fact. I've had to give it to the recruiter when I enlisted, and provide it when I needed a pass port and to apply for clearances needed for work.

What does Cruz use that proves to GovCo that Cruz is one of US? Not a birth certificate. He's Canadian.

What did Cruz use to get a social security number?

Cruz is naturalized American, not natural born American.

I bet his paperwork confirms that fact, which is the truth we, the voters, won't be able to handle...and he knows it.

[taxcontrol]

I dont provide documents, I site the actual laws of the United States. The only assertion in that “timeline” that maters ACCORDING TO THE LAW, is the assertion that Sen Cruz’s mother was not a US Citizen at the time of his birth.

That conjecture does not hold water without proof. And on this one point you whole case stands or falls. Yet you provide no document that shows she became a US citizen before Sen Cruz’s birth. That is your conjecture and therefore YOU own the responsibility to back up your assertion.

Post all the documents you want, but without the document that shows she changed her citizenship, you have no argument.

[trebb]

When I first came, it was more heavily Cruz. Last week, a bunch of them have gotten the boot.

You got here just as things were finally sorting themselves out as far as who seemed to have the best chance. Many/most wanted the strongest conservative (me included) which was Cruz, but had Trump as the second choice. At that time, some of us saw the writing on the wall and opted to go all-in for the guy who looked like he had the best chance of winning it all and the rifts appeared.

Understand that those who got bumped did not have it happen because of who they supported - it was other actions that got them booted/suspended.

You may have noted the fundraising drive that is always going on - far too many use the services provided by FR but do not donate to it. I personally consider that a hypocritical status since most of those same folks hate the welfare state we have become and opine that folks should carry their own weight if at all possible.

If you have yet to donate, I invite you to do so that FR remains viable.

Happy FReeping.