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]

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.

And you keep on getting it deliberately wrong.

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."

You are WORSE than ignorant. You decided before you started what it was going to mean, and you look at NOTHING except stuff you can twist into supporting your predetermined meaning. You aren't interested in the truth. You are only interested in pushing the Establishment party line, and I suspect it's because you WORK FOR THEM.

I think you are in the employ of a Republican Official. You have either been tasked with, or tasked yourself with Damage control for all the not quite qualified Republican Candidates that seem to have floated up to the top of the que.

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

And all of it wrong and misleading.

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

And his actions as President Completely disagree with YOU. He supported Ambassador Armstrong's (Also a Delegate) Determination that James McClure's citizenship was in doubt until further papers could be provided from South Carolina.

Birth in Charleston was NOT SUFFICIENT to convey American Citizenship. John Armstrong made this determination and James Madison Backed him up on it!

James Madison even wrote to the Alexandria Hearald under his well known pseudonym "Publius."

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

And then you CONSTANTLY make this False Claim that EVERY AUTHORITY IN HISTORY AGREES WITH YOU, when it is demonstrably false. In fact, very FEW "authorities" in history agree with you, and most of them are After William Rawle wrote his misleading book.

Those that actually know what they are talking about? I'm not aware that you have ANY. Of All I can recall you having mentioned, I don't recall any delegates among them.

Most of your alleged support comes from ex post facto lawyers merely repeating British-trained lawyer drivel. Actual Authorities who were there and know what it means? I can't recall your having mentioned any.

[Jeff Winston]

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

It doesn't matter how many times you falsely claim that the commentary of Samuel Roberts represented the views of the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.

It is clear from Roberts' own writing, in which he "presumed" [his own word] to know what the members of that Court would think, from the fact that Roberts actually CRITICIZES the Supreme Court's approach to the issue, and from the fact that Roberts makes no mention whatsoever of the Supreme Court having at any time or in any way sponsored, approved or even READ Roberts' book, that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Roberts' book.

Continuing to repeat the false claim that they did doesn't make it the slightest bit true. Neither does continuing to repeat the false claim that I'm a "liar."

On the other hand, of course, when Bayard states explicitly that Chief Justice Marshall READ HIS BOOK, and that he sent him a letter pointing out one minor error and saying that was the ONLY thing he could find wrong with Bayard's exposition of the Constitution... well, THAT can be completely ignored!

I have said it before, and I will say it again. You are in need of some kind of psychological help.

[Arthur McGowan]

I see nowhere in the law where a person who is a citizen at birth is ever naturalized.

[BuckeyeTexan]

That’s been my position for a long time. There is only one path to citizenship about which there can be no doubts. One can make arguments for and against the eligiblity of all other paths. JMHO2

[DiogenesLamp]

And this seems to be agreed on by literally all real historians who have ever commented on the matter throughout all of American history.

Have you not figured out yet that every time you repeat this lie it makes you look like an idiot? Here is Thomas F. Bayard rebuking you once again.

United States Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard:(March 7, 1885 March 6, 1889 )

And this begs the question. If a German father cannot create an American citizen WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, How much more unlikely is it WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES?

[Jeff Winston]

You are WORSE than ignorant. You decided before you started what it was going to mean, and you look at NOTHING except stuff you can twist into supporting your predetermined meaning.

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 his actions as President Completely disagree with YOU. He supported Ambassador Armstrong's (Also a Delegate) Determination that James McClure's citizenship was in doubt until further papers could be provided from South Carolina.

Birth in Charleston was NOT SUFFICIENT to convey American Citizenship. John Armstrong made this determination and James Madison Backed him up on it!

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.

James Madison even wrote to the Alexandria Hearald under his well known pseudonym "Publius."

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.

Making a stupid assertion again and again as if it were fact, when there is literally no evidence to support it, doesn't make it true.

Of All I can recall you having mentioned, I don't recall any delegates among them.

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.

Ah, but it's easy to overlook President Washington and nearly half of the Signers of the Constitution, isn't it?

You can keep posting your repeated known, verified false claims and other BS for as long as Jim will tolerate you. But I won't be surprised if one of these days... Viking Kitties...

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Apparently Mark Levin doesn't know as much about it as does Thomas Bayard.

United States Secretary of State, Thomas F Bayard:

So Let's see, Mark Levin, or someone who actually wielded the power of UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE during a time when they KNEW WHAT IT MEANT.

Tough call, but i'm going with THOMAS FREAKIN BAYARD.

Because you read some stupid birther crap on the internet.

Like the Stuff Jeff writes. Always wrong, always misleading.

[devolve]

.
.

- Who cares about Barack “Dogmeat” Hussein-Obama (Junior) anyway -

- ...”maybe a little blow”... is tattoed on his forehead

- ...”unfit to be a Rodeo Clown”... aptly describes Homo Electus

.
.

[Jeff Winston]

And this seems to be agreed on by literally all real historians who have ever commented on the matter throughout all of American history.

Have you not figured out yet that every time you repeat this lie it makes you look like an idiot? Here is Thomas F. Bayard rebuking you once again.

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.

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.

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.

[Retired Greyhound]

“I wish I could forget him completely and I wake up tomorrow to find I was having this big time comedic dream.”

It’s been more of a tragedy than a comedy. I still can’t believe that a shady man with such a laughably weak resume was able to get elected POTUS based on slogans and the color of his skin.

Imagine if a white guy named Barry O’Brien had tried to run for POTUS with Obama’s thin resume. He’d have no chance.

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.

Then I recall thinking during the Dem primary that Hillary would beat Obama, and that we would look back at “Hope and Change” and laugh about how ridiculous the whole phenomena was.

Finally, I remember thinking last year that incumbents with such a poor record never get re-elected.

Wrong on all counts.

[Red Steel]

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 .

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

[Jewbacca]

“Evidence?”

He came out of the womb of a US Citizen. That makes him a citizen at birth, not a naturalized citizen.

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

[DiogenesLamp]

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."

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?

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.

[Rebelbase]

“I really wish the rule was both parents MUST be born in the United States “

That was more difficult in the 1780s.

[plain talk]

“He cant run”

To hell he can’t. I believe in consistently applied laws. Since no one cares about Obama’s qualifications then NBC status doesn’t matter any more. Anyone can host SNL and anyone can become Senator or President. why worry about where Cruz was born? I hope he runs. I’d support him.

Laws don’t matter anymore. It’s every man for himself now. I say this sort of tongue-in-cheek but am actually serious. Screw it all. :-)

[DiogenesLamp]

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

I said Congress created the naturalization law in 1934 of which the 1952 law is subsequent. Beyond that, the first time Congress created this sort of citizenship was in 1922 with the Cable act.

It was a naturalization act in 1934, and it was still a naturalization act in 1952. That it specified "at birth" was a subjective preference of the law, and not the consequence of a transfer of "natural allegiance."

Under the English law system, "natural allegiance" is by soil. Canada follows this system, and those who have been claiming that we do as well are now backpedaling furiously from this position and are now claiming 1/2 "Sanguinus" is the basis.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Sorry. Legal precedent has already shown this not to be the case. So long as it’s under the direct administration of the Federal government it counts.

That's incorrect. The State Department Foreign Affairs manual states the following regarding the acquisition of citizenship in U.S. outlying possessions:

7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CON-407; 06-29-2012)

b. National vs. Citizen: While most people and countries use the terms “citizenship” and “nationality” interchangeably, U.S. law differentiates between the two. Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. The term “national of the United States”, as defined by statute (INA 101 (a)(22) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) includes all citizens of the United States, and other persons who owe allegiance to the United States but who have not been granted the privilege of citizenship.

(1) Nationals of the United States who are not citizens owe allegiance to the United States and are entitled to the consular protection of the United States when abroad, and to U.S. documentation, such as U.S. passports with appropriate endorsements. They are not entitled to voting representation in Congress and, under most state laws, are not entitled to vote in Federal, state, or local elections except in their place of birth. (See 7 FAM 012; 7 FAM 1300 Appendix B Endorsement 09.)

(2) Historically, Congress, through statutes, granted U.S. non-citizen nationality to persons born or inhabiting territory acquired by the United States through conquest or treaty. At one time or other natives and certain other residents of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Guam, and the Panama Canal Zone were U.S. non-citizen nationals. (See 7 FAM 1120.)

(3) Under current law, only persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are U.S. non-citizen nationals (INA 101(a)(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(29) and INA 308(1) (8 U.S.C. 1408)). (See 7 FAM 1125.)

7 FAM 1141 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CON-448; 03-05-2013)

a. The acquisition of non-citizen U.S. nationality by birth abroad is governed by treaty or congressional legislation. The law in effect when a person was born governs that person's acquisition of non-citizen U.S. nationality, unless the legislation specifically provides otherwise such as retroactive application. See 7 FAM 1120 regarding acquisition of U.S. nationality by birth in U.S. territories and possessions.

7 FAM 1121.4-3 Status of Inhabitants of Territories Not Mentioned in the Immigration and Nationality Act(INA)
(TL:CON-66; 10-10-96)

The United States exercises sovereignty over a few territories besides those mentioned above. Under international law and Supreme Court dicta, inhabitants of those territories, (Midway, Wake, Johnston, and other islands) would be considered non-citizen, U.S. nationals; However, because the INA defines "outlying possessions of the United States" as only American Samoa and Swains Island, there is no current law relating to the nationality of the inhabitants of those territories or persons born there who have not acquired U.S. nationality by other means.

[DiogenesLamp]

Therefore, 2 citizen parents was not a requirement.

It was an unavoidable consequence of the law. Marriage always naturalized a foreign wife. Both we and England used this principle.

In other words, prior to 1922, it wasn't POSSIBLE to have dual national parents.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

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.

But then none of us will be surprised at that.

[Jeff Winston]

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

If you have a direct link to the audio and can tell me where the comment occurs (so I don't have to waste time hunting for it), I would be interested to hear it.