Cruz Will Renounce Canadian Citizenship

The Washington Post ^ | Monday, August 19, 2013 | Aaron Blake

[kristinn]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced Monday evening that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship, less than 24 hours after a newspaper pointed out that the Canadian-born senator likely maintains dual citizenship.

“Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” Cruz said in a statement. “Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator; I believe I should be only an American.”

SNIP

“Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter,” Cruz said.

[Jeff Winston]

Justice Joseph Story was born in 1779. Do you think he contributed much to the Constitutional deliberations being that HE WAS ONLY eight (8) Freaking years old?

No, I don't think he attended the Constitution Convention.

But George Washington and the nearly half of the Signers of the Constitution who passed the 1790 Naturalization Act certainly did, and they absolutely contradict the idea that they intended for "natural born citizen" to mean what birthers say it meant.

James Madison did. He was called "Father of the Constitution." And he absolutely contradicts your claim that citizenship was simply by jus sanguinis.

And Justice Story certainly knew the law of the early United States - he is one of the foremost experts who did - and he certainly knew the Founding Generation, personally. His father was one of the Sons of Liberty who hosted the Boston Tea Party.

Story himself was appointed to the US Supreme Court by James Madison, where he served for many years with John Marshall, who was himself a Founder.

Story is, in fact, one of the most authoritative and credible voices of the early United States.

And this is what you do. You try to silence the most authoritative voices, or misrepresent them, while elevating non-authorities you think make you stupid case, like Samuel Roberts and David Ramsay.

He is, like MOST of the people you cite, not a member of the group who deliberated it, and in fact came along AFTER THE FACT. As is common with the people you always cite, his opinion is "hear say" and speculation, not first hand knowledge.

And this from the guy whose prime authorities are David Ramsay - not a member of the inner circle or Constitutional Convention, not a legal expert, who was voted down 36 to 1 by those in the know including James Madison; John Bingham who was a CONGRESSMAN two entire GENERATIONS after the Constitution was written; Samuel Roberts who didn't even represent the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (wow, were THEY at the Convention?), and the like.

Do you even understand how twisted, convoluted and self-contradictory your own positions are?

[Red Steel]

I don’t have one. I listen to him on radio. I’m sure there is a link out there for the Levin show. Levin stated that he thought Cruz was NBC because of his mother, but also said that he was not so learned about the NBC issue. The Levin comments came about 40 minutes into the 2nd hour of his show. His comments came before this story, “Cruz Will Renounce Canadian Citizenship”, broke on FR .

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I still don’t think he should be qualified for Presidency. I really wish the rule was both parents MUST be born in the United States and the individual must be born in the United States. None of this naturalization business. We have 300+ million people in the United States and have only had 45 people as President and we can’t have strict rules for being President? I would not even mind having the Grandparents be ONLY born in the United States, but in this liberal world that would NEVER pass.

The big difference between Soetoro and Cruz is that Cruz is indubitably a citizen, while Soetoro is very likely an illegal alien.

13 posted on August 19, 2013 9:37:27 PM EDT by Arthur McGowan

In reality, of course, the framers of the Constitution had no way of doing what they wanted to do = which was to assure that John Adam’s plea be fulfilled:

"I pray to heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.”

-- John Adams, Second President of the United States, Letter to Abigail, November 2, 1800, on moving into the White House

The requirement for the PotUS be a “natural born citizen” was the best they could do.

If Obama, who spent his childhood outside the US and not because his parents were in service to the US but because his mother married a Muslim, is actually “a natural born citizen,” that is a technicality.

And if Ted Cruz, who spent his childhood in a nominally Christian house briefly in Canada and maturing in the US, with a father who voluntarily became an American citizen, is not “a natural born citizen,” that too is a technicality.

[Jeff Winston]

Read the book Jeff. Look up the section where the SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA cites which English laws are in effect. Note which one is not included? Yeah, the one that grants citizenship by birth on the soil. It is referenced no where in the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sorry, but the point once again fails completely.

The legislature of Pennsylvania directed the Supreme Court of that State to determine which STATUTES of English law were in effect in that State.

Do you understand what COMMON LAW was? And do you understand what a STATUTE is?

Hint: They are not the same thing.

The book is a book about which STATUTES, that is, which LAWS ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE, were deemed to be in force in the State of Pennsylvania.

It is NOT a book that attempts to list the provisions of the COMMON LAW that were in force in that State.

In 1777, the State of Pennsylvania had passed the following STATUTE:

1. "Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the 14th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted.

Therefore, the COMMON LAW in general was specifically acknowledged to be in force in the State of Pennsylvania, except as it had been amended.

In fact, either the common law in general, or its specific rule regarding citizenship by birth, was in force IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE THIRTEEN ORIGINAL COLONIES.

The book was used by Pennsylvania courts for many decades, and if you think there is the slightest chance that it did not reflect the law as understood by and as based on the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania then you are a deluded loon.

To the extent that it LISTED AND PRESENTED THE TEXT of the statutes in force, it reflected the law.

To the extent that it INTERPRETED or COMMENTED ON those statutes, unless it specifically referenced the opinions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or some other higher authority, such comments represented the understanding and opinion of its author.

Let's review where this book came from.

The PA legislature decided it would be a good idea to ask the Supreme Court to determine which English STATUTES were in force in that State.

Everyone already knew that the COMMON LAW was in force, except as amended. That provision had been enacted in 1777.

But it wasn't quite clear which STATUTES were still in force.

So the Supreme Court sat down and made a LIST of the statutes. This was their REPORT.

And people like Samuel Roberts, who was responsible for administering the State's law in the county courts, looked at this list and said, "That's nice. But what would be even NICER would be if we had all of these statutes in one single book, so we don't have to go hunting and hunting for the actual text."

So Roberts took it upon himself to turn the LIST into a BOOK, that would contain all of that information.

He also flat-out objected to the Supreme Court's recommendation that all of these laws be re-enacted in a simplified form.

Why? Because they already had decades if not centuries of court cases that had interpreted and clarified those laws as they already were. Roberts didn't want to reinvent the wheel.

Roberts argued that - instead of taking the Supreme Court's approach - a better approach would simply be to compile all those laws in one volume, so people would know what they were.

So that's what he did.

There's not the slightest evidence he did so at the behest of the Supreme Court; in fact, it's clear that he DIDN'T.

The Supreme Court didn't ask for those laws to be compiled in a book. They didn't sponsor the project.

On the contrary, THEIR proposed approach was to get rid of those laws by re-enacting them in a (hopefully) simplified form!

So along the way, Roberts also made a few comments.

Those comments were his. They weren't the Supreme Court's.

And his particular comment you cite, that children born in the United States of aliens are not citizens, was Samuel Roberts' opinion, and no one else's.

He cited no other authority or precedent. He simply said that children born in the United States of alien parents were not citizens.

We have no idea where he got that idea from. Again, he cites no court case. He cites no common law precedent. He cites no other authority. Nothing.

And unlike William Rawle, there is absolutely nothing we know that would connect Roberts to any important Founder at all.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, the problem is that I DIDN'T decide beforehand what I wanted it to mean, but simply went with the evidence. Which there's plenty of, in spite of your unrelenting attempts to mischaracterize and obfuscate it.

And all of it you can find comes from YEARS LATER, even DECADES LATER, and written by people who DON'T KNOW WHAT THE **** THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

No, he didn't. As you well know, the SOLE REASON given by the Madison Administration for McClure's being an American citizen was that he was BORN IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.

Still trying to lie Jeff. The article is here for anyone who wishes to read the whole thing. It was explicitly noted that being BORN IN CHARLESTON was insufficient proof. That's why it took a Congressman and a Supreme Court justice to round up sufficient proof and present it to James Monroe before they would intercede on behalf of James McClure.

Only then did the Madison administration act. Prior to that, they had left James McClure IN FRENCH CUSTODY FOR A YEAR AND SEVEN MONTHS!

There's not the slightest evidence that "Publius" was James Madison, and you know it. "Publius" could've been anybody in America, and "Publius" himself expressed doubt about whether he was correct. And you know it.

No, it's pretty certain that whomever Publius was, he certainly put forth the position held by the James Madison Administration, complete with knowledge unobtainable by any other source. How do you suppose that "Publius" knew more about the case than did James McClure's lawyer? Where would he have garnered this information? You do recall that all the pertinent details were only know to the US And French Governments? If it wasn't Madison himself, it was definitely an agent acting on his behalf and at his direction.

Figure it out.

Ah, except for the nearly HALF of the Signers of the Constitution who declared in 1790 that the children born to US citizen abroad were to be considered as "natural born citizens," directly contradicting the birther BS.

And still you are so dense as to not comprehend the difference between the words "are" and "Shall be considered as."

You can keep posting your repeated known, verified false claims and other BS for as long as Jim will tolerate you.

I believe that of the two of us, it is YOU who has been told to "back off" by Jim Robinson.

[noinfringers2]

Cruz was born in Canada of a Cuban citizen father and a US mother. The parents did not come directly to the USA from Canada after the fathers Canada business. The father was at one time associated with the Cuban government i.e. Castro until he wised up and separated from the Cuban government. For all the apparent empathy that son Cruz has for the USA, and I believe it is sincere, he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as is the case with many of us in my generation that fought in WWII and died like my brother. Cruz too can be a fighter for the Founder’s USA.

[DiogenesLamp]

The claim I made was that all real historians who have ever commented on the matter agree THAT THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE ON PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY WAS NEVER NEEDED.

Well you say it so often, no one can tell when you mean one thing or the other. One thing you can bank on though, only a fool asserts unanimity.

Thomas Bayard's saying that a child born in Ohio to a German father who LIVED IN GERMANY and was only VISITING THE US TEMPORARILY was not a US citizen has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Grandfather Clause was ever needed.

And yet you totally miss the Irony of your having defended Obama's citizenship all these many years.

Where was this guy from again? Wasn't he "only VISITING THE US TEMPORARILY and was not a US citizen"?

You have seriously lost it, my friend. You need to step away from the keyboard and go for a walk in the fresh air, and maybe take a break from FreeRepublic for a few weeks.

Conversely I could simply enjoy myself by watching you squirm as I demonstrate the falsity of your assertions.

[Jeff Winston]

Still trying to lie Jeff. The article is here for anyone who wishes to read the whole thing. It was explicitly noted that being BORN IN CHARLESTON was insufficient proof.

Noted by the anonymous writer of the letter, who admitted himself that he wasn't certain he was correct.

NOT noted by the Madison Administration.

So once again you are twisting the matter.

That's why it took a Congressman and a Supreme Court justice to round up sufficient proof and present it to James Monroe before they would intercede on behalf of James McClure.

And what did that proof consist of? Documents proving that James McClure was BORN IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.

Only then did the Madison administration act. Prior to that, they had left James McClure IN FRENCH CUSTODY FOR A YEAR AND SEVEN MONTHS!

I looked at the time line on this. It took weeks for communication across the Atlantic Ocean, and the Madison Administration acted pretty promptly once the matter became well known.

No, it's pretty certain that whomever Publius was, he certainly put forth the position held by the James Madison Administration, complete with knowledge unobtainable by any other source.

No, he didn't. Publius' position was that James McClure was not a US citizen. The Madison Administration's position was that James McClure WAS a US citizen, because he had been born in South Carolina.

The two positions are, in fact, opposite.

This is what you do. You take black, and proclaim it to be white. You take white, and proclaim it to be black. Why? Because DiogenesLamp wants it to be that way.

How do you suppose that "Publius" knew more about the case than did James McClure's lawyer? Where would he have garnered this information?

He didn't.

And the details of the case were public knowledge. Publius' own letter begins: "The case of this man has made a good deal of stir in the U. States..."

[Cen-Tejas]

Exactly! The whole argument is MOOT until the LEFTIES, the Supreme Court, lower court judges hiding behind “standing”, lots of republicans and all democrats emerge from denial about Obama and WHERE the hell he was IN FACT born, ERGO, go Ted! I will support YOU with all I have.

[DiogenesLamp]

I remember once there was a story about George Clooney donating money to then candidate Barack Obama, and a FReeper wrote “money down the drain”, reasoning that an unknown named Barack Hussein Obama had no chance of getting elected in America.

He didn't. Any sensible person wouldn't have tried it. Had the media simply did the job they had previously done... the job they were EXPECTED to do... no greasy slime ball like Obama could have gotten through the primary, let alone the General.

What happened instead is something we've never seen before in the USA. The Media, totally controlled by Liberal Democrat extremists, stopped any pretense of objectivity, and used all the forces of their media empire to propagandize and campaign for their tin pot "lord."

Because they CONTROL all access to the American public, there was no means to get the ugly truth to the Electorate. The media intercepted every effort to expose Obama for what he was. Then they FABRICATED derogatory narratives about McCain/Palin, and used their Liberal Media echo chambers to amplify the false narrative.

Obama is still a fool. He couldn't have gotten elected with a normal media, and he had no way of knowing that the Media would turn into full fledged propaganda agents for him.

Today, I cite liberal control of the media as the greatest threat facing this nation. We need to either create rival media to compete with them, or destroy their ability to influence the electorate. Or both.

[Jeff Winston]

Where was this guy from again? Wasn't he "only VISITING THE US TEMPORARILY and was not a US citizen"?

Yes, he was.

But Obama was born to an American mother on American soil.

That being the case, he is clearly a US natural born citizen.

Doesn't matter whether you like it. Doesn't matter whether I like it. Doesn't make him a good President. He's frankly a sorry-@$$ President. It just means he was legally elected. And whether you or I like it, that's the way it is.

Because unlike you, I recognize what the law is, whether I like it or not.

[Jeff Winston]

Today, I cite liberal control of the media as the greatest threat facing this nation. We need to either create rival media to compete with them, or destroy their ability to influence the electorate. Or both.

On this, I agree with you.

[Hostage]

Two citizen parents was a requirement because women by virtue of marriage were bestowed all rights and inheritances from her husband. As soon as a woman married a US citizen she was automatically a US citizen even if she was not previously a US Citizen.

Therefore, any child born to a woman of a US citizen husband was in fact natural born as long as their ‘domicile’ was in the US, its territories or its possessions. That included the situations when a US married couple would take sea voyages which at the time could last many many weeks or they could reside for a time in a foreign land, and still their children were considered as natural born because the parents were both citizens and their permanent US domicile was proper.

[DiogenesLamp]

However, Levin admitted that he has not studied the history behind the natural born citizen clause on yesterday's show.

Who woulda thunk? What that Imbecile Jeff never seems to comprehend is that this "natural born citizen" issue is barely a blip in the overall study of constitutional law, and for the most part, people devote virtually no effort to it.

Most people who study constitutional law simply gloss over the issue and assume Wong Kim Ark is correct, and that it applies to "natural citizens" as well as 14th amendment citizens. Most of these "legal minds" have never even been made acquainted with the alternative theory.

They are completely unfamiliar with it. Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, etc. are examples of these.

Of course Jeff interprets legal ignorance as "siding with him." In a manner of speaking, he is absolutely correct.

[DiogenesLamp]

Such is the law, whether you agree with it or not.

Such is what modern and ignorant people CLAIM is the law. It isn't actually, but that doesn't keep them from saying so.

[DiogenesLamp]

I agree with your position. He might not be eligible under the 1787 understanding of the term, but no one actually cares about that anymore anyway.

If Cruz wins the nomination, I WILL support him. Screw the Democrats.

[JCBreckenridge]

“persons who owe allegiance to the United States but who have not been granted the privilege of citizenship.”

Which, once again, doesn’t apply to McCain.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I still see that citizenship at birth abroad to a US citizen is still NOT to be considered a naturalization.

Yes, that's what the Foreign Affaris manual states.

However, the 1971 SCOTUS decision in Rogers v. Bellei clearly states that citizenship granted at birth to those born abroad:

• is an indulgence and generosity by Congress
• is not an absolute
• can be denied or set aside
• can be contingent upon meeting requirements enacted by Congress
• that there is no constitutional right to such citizenship
• that Congress has the power to grant such citizenship through its constitutional power to enact an uniform rule of naturalization

Below are some excerpts from the decision.

Then follows a most significant sentence:

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

...

Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process.

The decision in Rogers v. Bellei leaves me with the impression that there is legal precedent for declaring that citizenship granted at birth by Congress is an act of naturalization and therefore is not equivalent to natural-born citizen within the meaning of the constitution. I'll have to give it some serious thought and research other cases.

H/T to Red Steel for pointing me to Rogers v. Bellei.

[DiogenesLamp]

Samuel Roberts

Trained by William Lewis, a Pennsylvania legislator during the ratification of the Constitution.

who didn't even represent the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (wow, were THEY at the Convention?), and the like.

Jasper Yeates took the Notes for the Pennsylvania Ratifying convention. Yeah, I think he knows what the **** he is talking about.

[DiogenesLamp]

And if Ted Cruz, who spent his childhood in a nominally Christian house briefly in Canada and maturing in the US, with a father who voluntarily became an American citizen, is not “a natural born citizen,” that too is a technicality.

Yes, it is a technicality, and that is why i'm willing to ignore it for Cruz. Cruz is more American than is Obama, that's for sure.