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.
Do you really not know that naturalization is a formal process that must be initiated by the person requesting citizenship? Of course not, its too complicated a concept for a Trumpbot lemming.
Why would it matter where he was born. What if Canada only gave citizenship to children born of two Canadians? Or based on moms citizenship?
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."
All of these imaginary hoops you people claim are necessary are fantasies of someone’s imagination.
This is even the opinion of conservative constitutional scholars like Professor Rob Natelson, whose work has been cited by the Supreme Court more than 17 times when trying to determine cases:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3383198/posts
What you are repeating is pure fantasy that has never been settled by any court of law, and which contradicts the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
I really don’t know if he did or not. It’s the same question we asked about Obama but we never saw any of that.
Yes it does. My son is a citizen because I declared him so at birth and got a certificate of live birth from the State Department. Otherwise and forever, he would be a German citizen.
False. He was a national and citizen of the United States at birth. He wasn't made a citizen. He was recognized under the law as a citizen.
Trump was born in the USA to two US citizen parents. Trump was not born in China. Cruz was not born in the USA. He was born in Canada, which is why there laws may be relevant.
For most purposes, it is not necessary to determine the method by which citizenship has been acquired. But the problem of whether a citizen is natural born or naturalized is important in such areas as denaturalization, expatriation, and qualification for certain offices such as the presidency. (For a discussion of the distinctions made in expatriation, see pp. 739-42 infra.)
When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen's qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. (See 5o Mich. L. REV. 926 (1952).)I>
50 Mich. L. Rev. 927 1951-1952
The result of the principal case is to limit the category "natural born" to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term "native born". Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are "natural born" and not "naturalized" citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent, that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
What is jus sanguinis? Right of blood, international law, children follow the nationality of the father.
Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization(1840-1950):
Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.
The 1st major exception to this 1790 Act was that “derivative†citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen. (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.
1903 Cyclopedia of law and procedure, Volume 7 (America Law Book Company, New York) By William Mack, Howard Pervear Nash
Children Of Aliens. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen ; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen
DOUBLE CITIZENSHIP: In this country a double citizenship exists, for the term applies both to membership in the nation considered as a whole and to membership in the state in which the individual may reside.
So no matter which way the mustard is cut, at best, Cruz is a naturalized US citizen as his citizenship required an Act of Congress as his father was not a US citizen.
If you believe that you are kidding yourself.
The democrats will bury Cruz in the general election about his citizenship.
All they have to do is create enough doubt and they are really really good at that.
So Canada didn’t recognize dual citizenship..........just like the U.S.
He has derived citizenship through law, i.e. not born on the soil
Yeah, what difference does it make?
Which is why he isn’t real strong against illegal immigration. He can promise anything in a campaign. Just like all politicians do. Then like the Ryan & the Rinos did recently send a toothless bill to Obama to veto SO THEY CAN GO BACK TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS and say WE TRIED! if they had Trump’s balls, and were true conservatives they would have used the power of the purse.
You do know not all countries allow anchor babies, right?
Ahhh....I wonder what the smartest Constitutional lawyer there is would say to that.
My point is Canada law has no bearing in this just as chinas doesn’t. Only US law matters.
I don’t know or care what Canadian law is. U.S. law recognized him as a citizen at birth (which is the same thing a NBC, despite the pitiful attempts to demonstrate otherwise.)
If his parents didn’t file for the consular report before he turned 18, he can file for a certificate of citizenship. If he has had a U.S. passport (and I believe I read somewhere that he had) he has already presented some evidence that he is a citizen. I am going to assume it is the citizenship he inherited from his mother at birth until someone shows me something that proves he was naturalized.
“It really is a serious question, and it deserves a serious answer.”
Agree.
These types of articles are maddening.
The standard for being President is NOT citizenship!
The standard is holding the equivalent of a canine pedigree.
You must be a Natural Born Citizen......you know a person whose citizenship flows naturally from the citizenship of the parents......
A puppy with a poodle mom and a poodle dad is a poodle. A pedigreed poodle!
How is a man, born to an American mom and a Canadian father, and born in Canada, a Natural Born Citizen of the United States???????
Answer.....he isn’t. He may or may not be a citizen, but he most assuredly NOT a NBC of the US or anywhere else, even Canada.
Very interesting.
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.