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.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. ...All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Where, in the constitution, do you put Cruz? Was he born a citizen of any state? Yes or No. If No, then he is not an Art IV. Sec. 2 citizen. Was he born in the US? Yes or no. If no, there is one option left, in the constitution.
One even applies to a different department of the US government, USCIS, not the State Department. And even if neither of THOSE options is exercised, a Court Order would serve the same purpose.
At any rate, I was just being pedantic. A person born abroad is totally unknown and foreign to the US (unless born to a diplomat), and could in fact remain totally unknown and foreign for their entire life. It isn't just that the US doesn't know if that person is a US citizen, it doesn't even know the person exists! It's up to the alien to come forth (show the US they exist) and then prove they have a valid claim to US citizenship.
Oh, please. You are wasting your time on these ignorant Cruzbots. They think they know the law, and yet, they don’t. All Ted had to do was present a paper from the U.S. Consultate, which he has never done. Instead, he submits his Canadian birth certificate. Well, duh - that isn’t in dispute, and has his other records sealed. So, one must assume he is hiding something significant. Gee - I w wonder what that might be?
not true
I have a friend who in his late 80’s - he’s had duel with Canada all his life
Moe lies from the rabble
Thats not recognizing dual citizenship (or not) at all. What it said is they felt Born Canadian, he’s still Canadian and so he was treasonous against his birth country I’m just not seeing dual in this example. Besides, it’s fact they didn’t prior to 1977. Thanks!!
I agree. I did leave out the USCIS part of it.
In the case of Ted Cruz, his citizenship was solely derived via the provisions of the 1952 Immigration and NATURALIZATION Act. It was conditional, by the way, based on the child fulfilling certain residency criteria once they became an adult.
His mother's divorce and re-marriage documentation bears on whether he qualifed as a citizen of the United States under the controlling statute at the time of his birth, which was the 1952 Immigration and NATURALIZATION Act. I have never seen those documents.
Those are especially important and interesting in light of the fact that his mother put her last name on his Canadian birth certificate as Wilson, the name of her first husband, not the name Cruz.
If and when he does that, the paper from the U.S. Consulate shows he was naturalized. If he doesn't show the paper or an equivalent (say a US passport), he has not shown he is a US citizen.
-- has his other records sealed. --
Those records aren't public, by default. He need take no affirmative action to seal them.
Kennedy gave the title of Honorary Citizen to Sir Winston. And yes, Churchill’s Mom was 100% American. Curious, with the same birth facts as Cruz, the US Gov’t and Kennedy settled upon “Honorary” for him..
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkchurchillhonoraryuscitizenship.htm
“The Constitution only gives Congress authority over naturalization. They have no authority over creating ‘natural born citizens’ or redefining what it means. If they could, then Congress can redefine words like ‘speech’ and ‘arms.’”
No matter how you slice it, your position does not align with the reality that the same actual founders who ratified the Constitution just 18 months later passed the first naturalization act which specifically included children born of US citizen parents abroad as “natural born citizens”. There is no record of any kind that demonstrates that a single founder had any problem with the constitutionality of this law. So their intent was evident.
And while you are splitting hairs about the exact constitutional authority Congress has in this arena, please identify the part where the legislature is given authority to regulate immigration. Are you prepared to demand that Congress stop enforcing all immigration law since it does not have the power to make such laws?
There are some reports that Cruz was born out of wedlock. That could account for the reason she didn’t have that name on Ted’s BC. I don’t know - it’s all speculation - but, that could clear up the issue.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 actually favors my position, since it singles in on the Fathers of children born abroad, thus showing the implicit assumption that natural born status follows the father. It was actually repealed 5 years later, with that one phrase being specifically removed and replaced, with the rest of the Act remaining intact.
Here is Professor Natelson, cited 17 times by the Supreme Court in their rulings, take on the amendment:
"Although Congress cannot alter the meaning of a constitutional provision, one may contend that this statute sheds light on the meaning of the constitutional meaning of “natural born.†It was adopted by a Congress that included important Founders and it was enacted before all of the 13 original states had ratified the Constitution. But at least four factors weaken its persuasive force:
First, the new federal Congress adopted it nearly a year after the Constitution had been ratified by eleven states. Its terms seem not to have been the subject of discussion during the ratification process.
Second, the statute is ambiguous. It applies to the "children of citizens."Â That may mean children with at least one citizen-parent. But it also might mean children with two citizen-parents. As noted above, other founding era sources that, at first glance, might seem to mean the former, actually mean the latter.
Third, when Congress used the term "citizen" it may well have meant only male citizens. Taken alone, it would not seem so. But remember that the then-prevailing assumption was that citizenship status followed the father. Observe how the statute's proviso focused solely on the father: “[T]he right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.â€
Fourth, the presence of “natural born†language in a statute dealing with naturalizationâ€and not otherwise with natural born statusâ€seems to demand explanation, and one likely explanation may not be good for Senator Cruz’s case:
During the founding era, certain private rights, such as inheritance and land ownership, could depend on citizenship or natural-born status. Congress may have been seeking, not to explain or define the constitutional requirement, but merely to extend private benefits to persons who might otherwise be excluded. This would explain why the statute provides that the "children . . . shall be considered as natural born†not that they literally are natural born."
OK, suppose for the sake of argument what you say above is the gospel truth: That Cruz is an NBC and the attempts to demonstrate otherwise are indeed pitiful.
The fact is this: in the absence of a positive judicial determination that Ted Cruz is an NBC, the Democrat Party, with a complicit mass media, will do everything in their power to muddy this issue and convince the electorate that there's a problem.
Collectively, IMHO, such forces will easily be able to create enough doubt in voters' minds so as to cost Ted Cruz the election.
That's right: even though Ted Cruz IS an NBC, this issue could cost him dearly in the general election.
Cruz supporters who think that this will be a total non-issue are hopelessly naive, and indeed denial.
Democrats and the media hammering Cruz with this issue might cost him independent and Democratic crossover voters, as well low-information voters, and these are exactly the voters whose support will be necessary for Cruz to win the general election.
I support Ted Cruz, but for his fanboys to whistle past the graveyard on the NBC issue, and think that it won't cause him problems in the general election, is patently absurd.
I'm in the camp of those Cruz supporters who believe that a judicial determination in Cruz's favor is absolutely critical to cancelling out the NBC issue in the general election.
To think that this line of attack against Cruz will only come from Trump is just absurd.
And if Ted Cruz's supporters on this board are any reflection of the character of the man they're supporting, then I'm going to have to reconsider my support for him, because the hysterical vitriol I'm seeing coming from them is just appalling.
The fact is that Donald Trump has captured the attention of the electorate much more effectively than Cruz has, and Trump is getting support and enthusiasm from demographics that Cruz could only dream of.
For Cruz's supporters to just sit back and denigrate all these Americans who are supporting Trump is, IMHO, the height of arrogance, and indeed it indicates a profound lack of awareness as to what is really occurring this election cycle.
Cruz supporters can rest assured, however, that if Donald Trump fails to win the GOP nomination, the passion which Trump has awakened will probably transfer over to their candidate.
But there can be no debate about where this phenomenon began.
‘What if china declares Trump a Chinese and not legal to be dual citizen.’
Trump wasn’t born in China. That’s the point: NBCs are wholly American.
That’s not exactly correct, iirc. It could be a crba or a us passport application and approval.
Also, iirc, if the parents neglect doing so, then he person can apply up to 21 years old, I believe.
Would not be surprising, would it? Like Mr. Bill said in 1993 about the "middle-class tax cut"
Ok what if trumo applied and received Chinese citizenship?would he be inelgible?
By that standard, there is no such thing as a natural born citizen, because the same law also recognizes people born here:
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
...
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...
My notes:
1. There is no difference in status at birth between paragraph (1) and (7)
2. I have heard several people advancing a theory that those born outside the US are "naturalized at birth," but the definitions in this statute put a monkey wrench in that:
TITLE I GENERAL
DEFINITIONS
SECTION 101. (a) As used in this Act-
...
(23) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
Senator Cruz was born to an alien father in a foreign land.
His supporters would disallow any other candidate, using simple common sense, with that fact pattern.
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.