Did he ever travel using a Canadian passport?
: )
No. He's always been an American.
Canada is welcome (by their standards) to claim as citizens, people born in their country but that doesn't change American law and citizenship.
***************
"...Birthers have been asserting that, since Rafael Cruz did not become an American citizen until 2005, and while he was in Canada with his wife, during which time Ted was born, he became an Canadian citizen. This, in the Birthers' view, disqualifies Ted from this Presidency, as "the Founders" never would have intended someone like him becoming President.
But look closer at the bolder portion. It never says that the father has to be a citizen of the United States at the time the child is born. All it says is that citizenship "shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." It is indisputable that Rafael Cruz was in the United States for a period of time prior to both Ted's birth and his marriage to native born American citizen Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson in 1969. He fled Cuba in 1957 at the age of 18, arriving in Texas. There, he attended the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics in 1961. He even married his first wife there, Julia Ann Garza, in 1959. They later divorced, but not before he had two daughters with her. He was also granted political asylum in 1961 upon his graduation from UT.
In other words, Ted Cruz's birth meets everything required in this 1790 act. His mother, Eleanor Wilson, was a citizen by birth in the United States, fulfilling the requirement of a child being born to at least one citizen, and his father had lived in the United States for years and been granted political asylum here prior to his move to Canada."... FR Thread
He has not, however, always been a Natural Born American.
Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Canadian Citizen by the laws of Canada in effect on the day of his birth.
It's hard to have always been an American when you were naturally born a Canadian and even had to renounce that citizenship at one point.
It is quite pathetic that alleged conservatives wipe their a55es with the constitution under the auspice of returning this country to constitutional governance.
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.
This would seem to be an act which 'naturalize someone who meets these specific requirements into the status of NBC- not just into `naturalized citizenship' such as an illegal alien would be naturalized' --
You may notice that the words "shall be considered as" have been emphasized. Anybody who tells you that the Act is a definition is misleading you. Congress did so deliberately (misled you). In the ordinary use of the English language, the phrase "shall be considered as" is as assignment of pretend.
There is a social security regulation that says, essentially, a person up to the age of 22 shall be considered as a child. That doesn't mean a person is in fact a child until they reach the age of 22, it means that the law will play make believe. This is called "legal fiction," and it is so common in statutory law, so as to be unremarkable.
If we look at only the 1790 law, and admit the fact (and it is a fact) that "shall be considered as" is legal fiction, then what the founders said about the subject, in the 1790 act, was this:
the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States are not natural born citizens, but for purposes of law, we will pretend they are
The Act, on its face, disproves the contention that Cruz is an NBC. It doesn't help his case, it demolishes it!
-- And the counter argument, the one trump is making, was that both parents would need to be citizens ... --
The statute is ambiguous as to one or both parents, but it doesn't matter. When you grok what the 1790 Act says, actually in plain English, when you grok that is expressly excludes what is described (children born abroad) from the conclusion (NBC), then it doesn't matter if the child had one parent, two parents, three parents (donor sperm), four parents (donor sperm and donor egg), or even zero parents (test tube baby).
-- I'm not sure how the justices argued away this act In the Bellei case in order to strip him of his citizenship --
The legal fiction created by this act was repealed in 1795. The justices didn't have argue it away, and plus, Bellei is, say the justices, naturalized.
At this point, many people deploy "magic thinking" and relapse into believing that a person can be "natural" (which is better thought of as "under the constitution") and naturalized (which is better thought of as "NOT under the constitution, but under Act of Congress") at the same time. They want to believe, so badly, that a person born abroad of a citizen parent is an NBC, that they become, on this point, literally kooks.
It's not an issue in real life. Just these people want to preserve the dream that their child can grow up to be president. The kids are citizens, but they are not 100% American at birth. A person born in Canada of a Cuban father and US Mother is not 100% American at birth. It's not their fault. They may turn into the best advocate for America, but they were born mixed. We the people can abandon the constitution via stupidity. Hell, I think we have.
Why has Cruz sealed his birth records?
John Jay wrote to George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention,"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen." Jay not only knew of Vattel, as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.
The first immigration act was passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel's assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the United States.
In this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States."
Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
Sorry but you are wrong...The child has to be under 21 years of age when the father was naturalized in order to be a natural born citizen...Ted was too old...
If as you claim the 1790 Act gives Cruz ‘eligibility’, then why did not Cruz use that Act when specifically asked about his eligibility? No act by a court or Congress can bestow upon on any one, the Constitutional requirement to hold the office of president... The Constitution does not say those 1790 Act is a requirement... Are eligible to hold the office of president.
The Constitutional requirement was not changed...it says one must be ‘natural born’. Cruz is not ‘natural born, and he knows it!