Posted on 08/19/2013 6:17:17 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Obviously, a “statutory natural-born citizen” is in law a “natural born citizen”, and a “statutory citizen at birth” is in law a “citizen”.
And when there are disputes over the proper application and correct interpretation of natural law, who is it that resolves those disputes?
Obama himself when he was promting himself and his upcoming book at the time as President of the Harvard Law Review and it didn't matter about making the most of the truth of his origins?
Or, Obama now (and for the last ten years) when those origins are a huge liabilty?
I know which one I believe.
It's really very obvious to anyone with a centilla of sincerity and critical thinking.
I get the impression that Senator Curz didn’t even know that he had Canadian citizenship until this issue hit the media. I believe that it is true that he did not know he had Canadian citizenship at birth until he read it in the Dallas newspaper this week.
There are lots of people who were born overseas on American military bases, for example, who have no idea that tey are citizens of another nation AND American citizens. Just because you live in a foreign country doesn’t mean you know all of their laws.
It is particularly typical that Americans don’t always know about their Canadian citizenship.
Senator Cruz is immediately renouncing Canadian citizenship.
I think on that birth certificate the space for the name of the father was blank
in 1961 the father’s name was not identified on documents if he was not married to the mother..
or the date of his birth may have been sooner than Aug 1961
or although he thought the man he met when he was 10 was just a friend of his Mom’s he found out that Obama Sr was his father..
he found out something new when he found the BC but what ??
If he had thought Obama Sr was his father and none he found a blank space for the father’s name what did he think then ???
But this is not about Obama..
this is about Ted Cruz with his foreign father...
and altimately Willard wioth his fireign father because the RomneyBots are still trying to shove Willard down our throats..
If the RomneyBots can get Ted Cruz accepted by the Conservatives in the eligibility area who would stop Willard ???
Willard has been mocking the “Birthers” for 5 years now and demanding we not continue to question Obama’s right to be POTUS because he doesnt want anyone to look at his own foreign born father and the family’s generational lack of loyalty to the US and possible ineligibility...
Dont think for a minute that old Botox face is not still running..
and Willard will use the Canadian birth against Ted Cruz if he cant find something else to destroy him with..
2 old liberal gummers, Joe V Willard...can you just see the debates ???
Obviously. the "shall be considered" clause was dropped because Great Britain also claimed them as subjects to the Queens and Kings. If one was born anywhere inside their British Empire - as the ole British saying went, "Once British always British" as they went about to capture Americans who were then forced to man their British ships. Duel nationality was rejected for all its complications. The Founding Fathers fought 2 wars not to be part of the British Empire.
Exactly. Bellei was a statutory citizen at birth under the INA and not a constitutional citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment.
Congress differentiated between the two types of citzenship at birth by imposing retention requirements upon the statutory citizen. The Court recognized Congress’ power to do so and also stipulated that Congress has no such power over constitutional citizens born under the 14th Amendment.
The Court further differentiated between the two types of citizenship at birth by stipulating that statutory citizens at birth have no constitutional right to their citizenship. It is granted as a Congressional generosity. Whereas citizens born under the 14th Amendment have a constitutional guarantee to their citizenship that cannot be revoked by a mere act of Congress.
So both Congress and the Courts have recognized a difference between statutory citizens at birth and constitutional citizens born under the 14th Amendment.
So 23 to 71 days.
Precisely like I said. Weeks. In fact, as much as 2-1/2 months.
Each direction.
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.
I never said there was.
he found it “folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms.”
Probably printed using a Burroughs “B5000” on punch cards.
When was that ever true? Here is how the law is administered now.
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “New” Section 309(a)
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) of the INA, as made applicable by the “new” Section 309(a) of the INA provided:
A blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth;
The father was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for five years, at least two of which were after reaching the age of 14.
The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
While the person is under the age of 18 years -- the person is legitimated under the law of his/her residence or domicile, the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father –
“Old” Section 309(a) of the INA- A child born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under the former Section 301(a)(7) of the INA as made applicable by the “old” Section 309(a) of the INA if the U.S. citizen father, prior to the child’s birth, had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14, and if the paternity of the child had been established by legitimation prior to the child reaching the age of 21. The “old” Section 309(a) of the INA is applicable to individuals who were 18 on November 14, 1986 and to individuals whose paternity had been established by legitimation prior to that date. Individuals who were at least 15 on November 14, 1986, but under the age of 18, could opt to have their claim determined in accordance with the provisions of either the “old” or the “new” Section 309(a).
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Some have made that argument, and it is not entirely without validity.
However, it is clear that the Framers who took their seats in the original First Congress, together with President George Washington, both specified quite clearly that such children should be "considered as natural born citizens" (meaning, obviously, that they would be equally eligible to be elected President on meeting the other qualifications to the office), and believed that Congress's Constitutional power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" extended to declaring that such children could be natural born citizens eligible to be President.
It is also clear that James Bayard, writing in 1833, stated with absolute clarity that birth on US soil was not necessary for Presidential eligibility; that being born a citizen was enough.
It is also clear that Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was reviewed by Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent and other distinguished legal experts of the early United States, and no one found any fault with his interpretation of "natural born citizen."
Bayard also had another line into the thoughts of the Founders and Framers: His maternal grandfather was Richard Bassett, one of the Signers of the Constitution, who was also the most senior member of the First Congress. He was given the ranks of "Senator #1" of the United States.
It is also clear that no significant legal authority in history has ever drawn any real distinction between "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen."
Some years ago, a legal scholar named Jill Pryor wrote an article in which she characterized such children as "naturalized-born."
After all the talk on the subject, I find that characterization to be reasonable enough.
Having studied the roots of the entire phrase quite extensively now, I find the dissent in Wong to be generally out of touch with many of the historical meanings and principles. But there is at least one point on which I agree with Chief Justice Fuller's dissent.
Fuller said it was unreasonable to think that the children born on US soil of Mongolian parents were eligible to the Presidency, and the children born abroad to US citizens were not. I agree.
All of this has a very simple and obvious answer. Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen by birth, a natural born citizen and eligible to the Presidency.
Ted Cruz is a US citizen by birth, therefore a natural born citizen and eligible to the Presidency.
It matters not that Wong's natural born citizen status came a bit more directly, via the common law and perhaps the 14th Amendment, and that Cruz's natural born citizen status came through the Constitutional authority of Congress to define, at their discretion, which persons born abroad would also be citizens by birth, natural born citizens.
The Constitution, in effect, has authorized both routes.
And how do I know that the Constitution has authorized both routes - the common law and the discretion of Congress through its power to define a uniform rule of naturalization?
I know it because the men who Signed that Constitution clearly believed that was what the document meant.
If they had not believed that, then they (with President Washington) would never have specified, during the course of the First Congress, that the children born overseas to US citizens were themselves "to be considered as natural-born Citizens."
That's my 2c.
Doesn’t matter what I agree with, there were statutes on the books in regards to situation, whether you view them as Constitutional or not.
It is also clear that Bayard is contradicted by law.
Ted Cruz is a US citizen by birth, therefore a natural born citizen and eligible to the Presidency.
Ted Cruz is a US citizen by law. The law states that he is a "citizen".
Yes, well, except for the inconvenient fact that by the time Roberts' book was published, two of the four Justices who authored the report were dead, and a third died about the time the book was published.
The Chief Justice, of course, continued to live for some years. But he was the only Justice whose work was mentioned in Roberts' book who did. And one might imagine that as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania he probably had some other fish to fry than correcting what would've been perceived as a fairly insignificant error in Roberts' commentary.
Once again, while I have clearly identified - and documented - numerous provably false claims on your part, I can't think offhand of a single statement I've ever made that was untrue. And if there was one or more such statements in the history of 2 years of discussing this crap, I can assure it it, or they, have been quite innocently made, and corrected on my first awareness of any error.
What you don't seem to get is that it is the birthers who are attempting to revise the Constitution to suit their ideas of what it should say.
And there is not the slightest doubt about this. Not one significant authority in the entirety of United States history, conservative, liberal or otherwise, has EVER interpreted the Constitution the way that birthers do. Not one single significant legal or historical authority has EVER given "natural born citizen" the meaning they give it. Not one single bona-fine published textbook in American history has EVER said that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
There's no real legal or historical argument here at all. Not among the people who deal professionally with either history or law.
The ONLY people making this claim are a bunch of people on the internet who have little understanding of either history or law, but insist that they do.
“I get the impression that Senator Curz didn’t even know that he had Canadian citizenship until this issue hit the media.”
He probably doesn’t know that he may be a Cuban citizen also under paragraph iii below, depending on if his father processed Rafael’s paperwork at the Cuban embassy/consulate in Canada (assuming this is a legal translation of Cuban law):
“ARTICLE 28
Cuban citizenship is acquired by birth or through naturalization.
ARTICLE 29
Cuban citizens by birth are:
i. those born in national territory, with the exception of the children of foreign persons at the service of their government or international organizations. In the case of the children of temporary foreign residents in the country, the law stipulates the requisites and formalities;
ii. those born abroad, one of whose parents at least is Cuban and on an official mission;
iii. those born abroad, one of whose parents at least is Cuban, who have complied with the formalities stipulated by law;
iv. those born outside national territory, one of whose parents at least is Cuban and who lost their Cuban citizenship provide they apply for said citizenship according to the procedures stated by law;
v. foreigners who, by virtue of their exceptional merits won in the struggles for Cubans liberation, were considered Cuban citizens by birth.
http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/cuba/constitution/constitution03.php
> “As soon as a woman married a US citizen she was automatically a US citizen even if she was not previously a US Citizen.”
> “When was that ever true?”
This was true of English Common Law practiced in the Colonies and after the adoption of the Constitution.
It was likely true up until universal suffrage, when women won the right to vote.
Marriage as an institution in colonial times and during the 18th and 19th centuries in America was undoubtedly stronger as an institution then than it is now where a married couple can easily toss their marriage aside as easy as taking out the garbage.
The question is what were the framers thinking when they inserted ‘natural born citizen’ into the Constitution? We know from John Jay’s letter to General George Washington they were thinking of a further check against a person assuming control of the military who was not in full allegiance to the Constitution.
But a related question is what does it mean ‘natural born citizen’. The answer is a child born of citizens on US soil or its territories or its possessions or allowing for transitioning or living temporarily abroad but having a permanent domicile on US soil or its territories or its possessions.
The phrase ‘born of citizens’ means one citizen? two citizens? It means two citizens for in marriage the women was accorded full rights and inheritances of the husband’s domain and was deemed a citizen by marriage even if she had been a Native American or French or other.
Children born out of wedlock had no citizenship status unless they were recognized by the father or the father was made to accept responsibility by the local community or parish, or further an application was made and were naturalized. To gain further insight one needs to understand the historical meaning of simple citizenship
Not all persons born on American soil were automatic citizens.
In fact the definition of citizen was only made clear in regards to marriage and property. Native Americans, former English subjects, non-christians, German and Dutch variations, Bastardy, illegitimacy, freed slaves were in the background of a local process of how citizenship was transmitted or not transmitted to persons. Birth, naturalization, property purchase and so on were all factors in deciding a right to citizenship; citizenship had privileges. But birth alone on US controlled soil did not guarantee American citizenship.
The only reason this is a hot topic today is because people sense Obama does not really like traditional America, that he harbors ill will against traditionalists who are mostly Christian whites and that he will seek to make America in his own image whatever that is. He has divulged classified material for no good purpose and it is suspected that such release has led to deaths of Americans abroad. He seems not to care about America’s history and its traditions. He seems against these things, therefore we are uncomfortable and uncertain, hence we ask questions.
So Obama’s allegiance and loyalties are called into question. We ponder and learn anew the notions of citizenship, natural born, allegiance (what is owed as a duty), loyalty (what is felt and valued) and so on because we sense these things are important to governance.
Here’s a good read on all these matters:
That is certainly a valid argument and your points are well taken. Here’s another way of looking at Rogers v. Bellei.
Rogers v. Bellei found both sides accepting that children born abroad to citizen parents do so through NATURALIZATION by statute.
“Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was ‘declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,’ so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being NATURALIZED in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned.” —United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., at 688. Then follows a most significant sentence: “But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of NATURALIZATION.”
In the dissent, Justices Black, Douglas and Marshall point out how any other modes of acquiring citizenship than birth on soil are forms of NATURALIZATION, constitutionally speaking.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting: “The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of NATURALIZATION. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, NATURALIZATION when used in its constitutional sense is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship OTHER THAN BIRTH IN THIS COUNTRY. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of NATURALIZATION. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra. Thus in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167 (1875), the Court said: “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by NATURALIZATION. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by NATURALIZATION.” And in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884), the Court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment: “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and NATURALIZATION. . . . Persons not . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being NATURALIZED, either individually, as by proceedings under the NATURALIZATION acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.” 112 U. S., at 101-102.
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.