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.

[Red Steel]

I'd like to thank you for cluing me on this Supreme Court opinion. The Supreme Court opines on many obvious facts about naturalization and the 14th Amendment, which they state it on record for the not so bright and deniers.

Rogers v. Bellei - 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

[Nero Germanicus]

How about listing a few of the cases that you are referring to. And I mean cases that specifically reference whether a candidate for president or vice president who is a citizen of the United a states at birth is also eligible or ineligible as a natural born citizen.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Once again, guess what got excepted? Pennsylvania's own constitution of 1776 (Benjamin Franklin Presiding, James Wilson Delegate) Specifies the voting Franchise to be applicable to a naturalized resident or the Son of a Citizen.

Both editions 1817 and 1847 explicitly state that the United States does not follow English Common law on this issue. You reckon the ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA might not have noticed it was wrong?

Keep dreaming.

I'm not bothering with the rest of your "Wall of text."

[BuckeyeTexan]

The Foreign Affairs manual explicitly states that citizens at birth are not naturalized. I posted the relevant text at #188.

However, in reading the 1971 SCOTUS decision in Rogers v. Bellei, I'm wondering if the FAM is incorrect in its assertion. Please read post #358 and share your thoughts.

[Jeff Winston]

Boy, you’re really grasping at straws.

Is that image from the judges’ report that Roberts alluded to in his book? I seem to recall that a later edition of the book added in a copy of the judges’ actual report, instead of simply referring to it.

Whatever. Two things are clear:

1. Whatever you’re referring to wasn’t even in Roberts’ original book.

2. You’ve produced no record that Jasper Yeates himself ever approved Roberts’ statement on citizenship, approved Roberts’ book, sponsored Roberts’ book, READ Roberts’ book, or ever said anything that supported the stupid birther BS in any way.

This is what you do. You complain that others use really authoritative sources (like Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story) who weren’t actually at the Constitutional Convention - although it is crystal clear that at least close to half of the Signers of the Constitution contradict the birther bullsh*t.

And then in the next breath, you claim that, oh, Jasper Yeates took the notes at a ratifying convention, and he helped write a report that was REFERRED TO by a several-counties judge who says something you like. So wow, THAT’S authoritative.

No, it isn’t. It’s bullsh*t. And anybody reading this knows it.

[Red Steel]

I printed out all 20 pages of Rogers v. Bellei. It's chock full about naturalization. It states what are obvious facts, but have been denied "for I want it to be this way because I say so crowd."

Like this tidbit.

"Savornan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 338 U.S. 500 (1950); N. Bar-Yaacov, Duel Nationality xi and 4 (1961). These problems are particularly acute when it is the father who is the child's alien parent and the father chooses to have his family reside in the country of his own nationality. The child reared, at best, in an atmosphere of divided loyalty. We cannot say that a concern that the child's own primary allegaince is to the country of his birth and of his father's allegiance is either misplaced or arbitrary."

[BuckeyeTexan]

I am simply and utterly amazed by the logic of both the majority opinion and the dissent in Rogers v. Bellei. I will be spending lots of time on it. Thank you again.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I was responding to your comment that "So long as it’s under the direct administration of the Federal government it counts." I made no assertions about John McCain or the Panama Canal Zone.

[Tennessee Nana]

Obama’s mother did not meet the criteria,
______________________________________________

Jeffie the age or marital status of Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama/Soetoro is not in quesxtion here..

Obama was born in Hawaii a state in the United States of America..

(As I recall you were not a “Birther” with the rest of us were you ???

so Hawaii it is for your peace of mind...)

so her age matters not..

she has to be at least 19 to pass on US citizenship if the child was born overseas..

Not necessary in this case..

Stan Ann WAS married to the father of Obama in Hawaii Feb 1961 according to her divorce from Obama Sr

so although it doesnt matter if she was single or married she just happened to be..

If a child is born in the US he/she is an American citizen any if the mother is an illegal alien and single and the biological father is an illegal alien also..

BTW if there is a single mother there is also a single father..

IF as you say the American mother who is single cannot pass on her US citizenship to a child then neither can that single father who in 1961 would have had no legal right to the child..

So if Obama wasnt a US citizen according to you, he certainly wasnt British or Kenyan either if the father Obama Sr was single..

Even now I doubt if Obama would have been British or Kenyan if his father was single due to the strict qualifications..

so there you have according to you a child with no country..

Jeffie how we doin up to now ???

Meanwhile Ted Cruz was definitely NOT born in the US and thankfully according to you due to his marital status his married father was able to pass on his Cuban citizenship..

Now aint that refreshing to know ???

[Jeff Winston]

Once again, guess what got excepted? Pennsylvania's own constitution of 1776 (Benjamin Franklin Presiding, James Wilson Delegate) Specifies the voting Franchise to be applicable to a naturalized resident or the Son of a Citizen.

What does that have to do with the definition of a citizen? Nothing.

Here's the text:

SECT. 6. Every freemen of the full age of twenty-one Years, having resided in this state for the space of one whole Year next before the day of election for representatives, and paid public taxes during that time, shall enjoy the right of an elector: Provided always, that sons of freeholders of the age of twenty-one years shall be intitled to vote although they have not paid taxes.

You say:

I'm not bothering with the rest of your "Wall of text."

I'll give you some better advice.

Why don't you stop bothering to post false claims?

I know that posting false claims and making false arguments gets you some of what you want. Someone pays attention to you.

That leads me to believe, by the way, that no one pays much attention to you otherwise. Am I right?

The problem is, no one concludes you are brilliant. No one who is astute at all concludes that you are contributing anything of any particular value. You've made yourself not a valued contributor, but simply an anti-Constitutional nuisance.

So why don't you turn your energy to doing something that I or someone else could respect?

The same energy you spend on promoting a false narrative, you could use to create something that had genuine value.

And if you did that, then you could legitimately get the respect and attention you'd like to have.

Think about it.

[Ray76]

The international status of a foreign born child of a US citizen may differ depending upon treaty.

That person may visit a country with which the US has secured by treaty reciprocal naturalization understandings without fear of claims upon him by the foreign country.

That same person may visit a country with which the US has not secured by treaty reciprocal naturalization understandings but at the risk of claims upon him by the foreign country.

While this person’s domestic status is the same, his international status depends upon treaty.

A “natural born citizen” - a person born within the US with parental US citizenship - has no such risk. His domestic and international status is always the same, without any dependency upon law or treaty, no other nation may make any claim upon this person.

Can a person who’s international status is dependent upon law or treaty be said to be a “natural born citizen”?

[BuckeyeTexan]

See my post #358. I'm interested in your thoughts in addition to the others whom I pinged. Please read both the majority opinion and the dissent in Rogers v. Bellei. Granted it may take some time to respond.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

John Armstrong had that nearly two years previously. He adjudged it not sufficient. Obviously it doesn't take a Supreme Court Judge and a Congressman to convey a recognition of birth in Charleston. What documents they brought are not specified in the Monroe letter, but they were certainly more than an attestation of birth.

As Publius outlined, what was required was proof that South Carolina law naturalized the already born children of a naturalized citizen. I have little doubt that what the Judge and Congressman brought was an attestation that it did.

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.

And how long does Jeff think is the NORMAL time delay across the Atlantic at this time? Nearly a year each way? Think again.

Corroboration of Atlantic crossing times in the 1700's:

- straight line distance from Southampton to Philadelphia = 3301 nautical miles, or 3796 miles; adding 15% for variation = 4365 mi.;

- a reasonable average sailing speed for a three masted brig, barque, or merchant ship may be estimated at 4-5 knots

- knot (nautical mile) = 1.15 miles, 4 knots/hr = 4.6 mph

- at 4.6 mph, 4365 miles is covered in 39.5 days

- if sailing against the gulf current, losing 60 miles per day, apparent speed is reduced by 60/24 = 2.5 mph loss

- apparent speed against the gulf stream = 4.6 mph -2.5 = 2.1 mph

- if two-thirds of the trip is against the gulf stream current, then .67 x 3992 = 2925 miles at 2.1 mph, 1441 miles at 4.6 mph

- time of passage if 2/3 of trip is against the current = 71.1 days (almost twice as long)

- distance from Southampton to Philadelphia via the Azores including 15% variation = 4917 miles

- time via the above route at 4.6 mph avg = 44.5 days (no effects from the Gulf Stream, though on part of the leg from England to the Azores, the effect would have been beneficial)

- a "fast" whaling ship averaging 7.0 knots, could traverse the northerly route, 4365 miles, in 22.6 days

Say 1-2 months. So what did they do for the other 13-15 months? Ponder it?

Once again, too bad Jeff wasn't around to correct people like James Madison, John Armstrong and James Monroe. He could have told them on the very first moment that James McClure was a citizen because he was BORN IN CHARLESTON SOUTH CAROLINA. Unfortunately James Madison, John Armstrong and James Monroe were ALL TOO STUPID to understand what Jeff knows.

[xzins]

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.

This means that 14th amendment citizenship was not the question with Bellei. His citizenship was based on birth abroad to a US parent and that was under the purview of Congress, based on the authority given them in the US Constitution.

Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship,

In the case of Bellei, who had refused to observe the requirements of the law for retaining his citizenship, the US stripped him of his citizenship. He wanted that ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the law that he could be stripped.

The italics above is simple recognition that in bloodline citizenship that Congress is empowered by the US Constitution to make what it considers to be reasonable law.

Therefore, the law it makes on this subject is binding.

The current law says the following are both nationals and citizens at birth (item (g) is the case of Ted Cruz):

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

[DiogenesLamp]

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

In 1787 they didn't have split citizenship. Marriage to the father naturalized the mother. Parents were always the same citizenship until 1922.

Now you can say the law was sexist, and it was, but the point still remains that there was NO SUCH THING AS DIVIDED CITIZENSHIP in 1787.

Congress created this Bastard class by passing a well meaning law in 1922, and reinforced it in 1934. But it is not a "natural" form of citizenship. It's bizarre and prone towards abuse, as Obama has so aptly illustrated.

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

Naw, you just repeat what people tell you when you agree with it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Exactly right.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'd like to thank you for cluing me on this Supreme Court opinion. The Supreme Court opines on many obvious facts about naturalization and the 14th Amendment, which they state it on record for the not so bright and deniers.

You're welcome. I just wish some people weren't so dense about understanding what it means. The Supreme Court SAYS it's "naturalization." They aren't ambiguous about this, they're pretty solid about it.

[DiogenesLamp]

How about listing a few of the cases that you are referring to. And I mean cases that specifically reference whether a candidate for president or vice president who is a citizen of the United a states at birth is also eligible or ineligible as a natural born citizen.

How about we ignore the court cases and focus instead upon what the law's CREATORS thought?

No one gives a fig about idiot judges a hundred years after the fact. Get to the root or go home.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Foreign Affairs manual explicitly states that citizens at birth are not naturalized. I posted the relevant text at #188.

The Foreign Affairs manual derives whatever authority it claims from it's Bureaucracy which derives theirs from Congress which derives theirs from the Constitution.

They cannot override constitutional meanings by Bureaucratic or Congressional fiat.

However, in reading the 1971 SCOTUS decision in Rogers v. Bellei, I'm wondering if the FAM is incorrect in its assertion. Please read post #358 and share your thoughts.

I think you have a pretty good grasp of the ramifications of the Rogers v Bellei ruling. I have been saying for perhaps a year that Cruz and Bellei share the same legal circumstances with the difference being that Cruz complied with all the requirements whereas Bellei didn't.

My point remains though, that a "natural citizen" doesn't have conditions placed on their mother or themselves. They just are a citizen through no overt action of law.

[Nero Germanicus]

You are talking about a U.S. State Department administrative rule for its Bureau of Consular Affairs codified in the Foreign Affairs Manual (Volume 7), not a law passed by Congress and signed by a president.