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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Check the 1952 Naturalization law to see that I am correct.

Did. Says he's naturalized. Earlier 1934 law says the same thing.

[Forty-Niner]

Whileall Natural born citizens are born citizens! Not all born citizens areNatural Born Citizens. This is especially true in Cruz’s quality of birth. he lacks the pedigree of having been born on US soil and having a US citizen father. a born citizen certainly because of his US citizen mother, but not a NBC because of his Canadian birth to a non US citizen father.

It’s a sad state of affairs when our best Conservative spokesmen don’t meet the bare minimum requirements for POTUS of NBC.

[DiogenesLamp]

(2) naturalized

And current law continues that formulation.

A resort to statutory law is an exclusion of nature.

[xzins]

No, it says this: section (g) is the relevant paragraph.

INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) 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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

[Jeff Winston]

It’s obvious you haven’t read the Constitution or you have reading comprehension problems.

No, the problem is that I have read and studied the Constitution, the history and the law EXTENSIVELY by this point, and you haven't. You don't know jack about it.

And for some reason, people who don't know jack about a subject think that they're the experts, and that those who've now studied it in every detail are "ignorant."

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, ***or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution***, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Yes, I've read it, many times. I've read what's been written about it. Extensively.

The marked phrase takes care of those that signed the Constitution or became President and were not natural born citizens.

Sorry, but James Madison, Father of the Constitution, talked about the nature of citizenship in the early United States, and he disagrees with you.

So does every historian in American history who has ever commented on the matter.

You know, the people who dedicate their lives to history and do this for a living? Instead of just posing as know-it-alls on the web?

[Jeff Winston]

You overlook the fact that they were declared in the Constitution to be eligible for the office of President, because they were residents of the United States at the signing of the Constitution.

No. The grandfather clause for Presidential eligibility was never used. And this seems to be agreed on by literally all real historians who have ever commented on the matter throughout all of American history.

Ah, but all the historians who've ever lived are idiots. Yeah, I know.

See posts 130 and 210 for more details.

[DiogenesLamp]

I know the Constitution, history and the law backwards, forwards and sideways on the meaning of natural born citizen by now.

No you don't. You have a misinformed and ignorant understanding of the term "natural born citizen" and you deliberately exclude any evidence which contradicts your preconceived notions.

Stop holding yourself up as an expert. You are the worst kind of misinformer and Deliberate liar.

And I can tell you without the slightest qualification that all of the claims that it takes both birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen are complete bullsh*t.

Here is the SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA telling you you are absolutely wrong!

In both instances the people who want to believe the bullsh*t listen to the Al Sharptons and the DiogenesLamps, and simply ignore or write off all the evidence that contradicts them, which in both cases is virtually all of it.

Or anyone else other than the Deliberate LIAR Jeff Winston.

[Jeff Winston]

Yes he does, but he has his own set of prejudices just like the rest of us. He choose to ignore the plain fact that the Framers defined exactly what a Natural Born Citizen was...

No, the problems is that Mark Levin actually fully understands the Constitution, history and the law - since he's studied it diligently for about the past 40 years, including being a lawyer by profession for the past 33 years - and people like you only imagine and kid yourself that you do.

Because you read some stupid birther crap on the internet.

[DiogenesLamp]

I quoted the poster word for word.

That would be a first. Usually you CUT OUT the parts of a quote you don't like.

[Hostage]

You’re a waste of time. Get lost!

[Hostage]

You’re a waste of time and bandwidth. Second time I’m telling you to get lost. Next time you deal with the admin moderator, understand?

[xzins]

You pinged me in post #230, unsolicited on my part. Did you forget?

Call the admin mod. In fact, I’ll do it for you.

“Can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.”

[Jeff Winston]

You misunderstood Justice Story’s commentary with respect to Article 2.

No, I haven't.

It's true that if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson hadn't been natural born citizens, then the grandfather clause would have made them eligible.

But they never needed it. They were natural born citizens.

Story states that it was passed "out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country."

That means it specifically WAS NOT PASSED for the sake of George Washington, et al. Again: They didn't need it. They were natural born citizens.

Incidentally, if the birther claim that "you couldn't be a natural born citizen, because the United States didn't exist when the Founders were born" were true, then George Washington could not have been inaugurated as President. Because his first inauguration came less than 14 years after the Declaration of Independence.

[DiogenesLamp]

THEY used the expression “natural born citizen” to describe the child born overseas to US citizens.

But they didn't say *IS*. They said "shall be consider *AS*". Meaning Similar.

They also said that having a foreign father kills the deal.

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

[DiogenesLamp]

You can keep quoting it, but I know that it didn't exist prior to 1934, and therefore cannot be an accurate reading of the Natural born citizen meaning as it existed in 1787.

An act granting citizenship where it didn't exist before is a naturalization act. Not an act of nature.

[Jeff Head]

The criteria for a single mother, or a married mother and her child being considered natural born does apply whether born here or elsewhere.

Cruz’s mother met those criteria. The 1790 Congress made it clear, and the plural they were talking about was not both parents, it was citizens (in the plural) so born, which has been clarified since.

Obama’s mother did not meet the criteria, and Obama’s himself claimed and used foreign citizenship, and claimed it. So, in several aspects, nannie, Obama does not meet the criteria. I believe Cruz does.

But Obama is not what I am talking about here.

If it goes that far, and since he is completely open about it and not trying to hide anything, my guess is that the US Supreme Court will have to weigh in on it to decide...again, if Cruz goes that far.

[xzins]

The opposite, Dio, is for it to have said, “shall NOT be considered as.”

So, to be clear that the reading of the law would not reject those born overseas, the law said to consider them as “natural born citizens”.

IF you need to be a natural born citizen to run for the presidency, and if person A is to be, in that situation, considered as a natural born citizen, then he is eligible for the presidency.

Hypothetical:You are now considering Person A, who is to be considered as a natural born citizen, for the presidency.

How are you to consider him: (1)As a natural born citizen who is eligible, or (2) Not as a natural born citizen who would not be eligible?

[BuckeyeTexan]

See post #56 or somewhere near there. It has the last modification date from 12/2010.

[xzins]

Are you saying the law of 1952 didn’t exist before 1937? I’ve misunderstanding you. What are you saying?

[xzins]

The 1790 law operated in a time when women did not have equality under the law. Therefore, if the father of the child had never been a citizen of the US, hadn’t even lived in it, then the child could not be a US citizen.

However, note that if the father HAD been a resident citizen, and the MOTHER had not been, that the law would permit that child to be considered a “natural born citizen.”

Therefore, 2 citizen parents was not a requirement. This 1790 law indicates that one citizen parent would be acceptable.