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.

[Ray76]

Source?

[DiogenesLamp]

So 23 to 71 days.

Precisely like I said. Weeks. In fact, as much as 2-1/2 months.

Each direction.

With 13 months of inaction in between.

Why was there inaction? Because James Madison FULLY SUPPORTED Ambassador Armstrong's decision.

[DiogenesLamp]

but the point still remains that there was NO SUCH THING AS DIVIDED CITIZENSHIP in 1787.

I never said there was.

Then why on earth should we accept it for Presidential eligibility? It is an unnatural creation of congress, not a characteristic of natural law.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Your words ring hollow. You know that is nonsense. For Roberts to have falsely claimed that the book was a summation of the work of the Pennsylvania Supreme court, and were it not true there would have been an instantaneous and immediate uproar.

People valued their reputations in those days, and it is nonsensical to think that a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would not have taken steps to dispute any false reference to him and his colleagues.

The ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA knew who Roberts was. They knew those Judges. They Knew that book. Rawle even knew that book. It was impossible to be *IN* the Pennsylvania legal system without being aware of that book.

The existence of that book is just a contrary fact which you want to go away. Well it's not going away because it is part of history and a telling piece of evidence.

[bluecat6]

And yet to this day it would appear the current CiC is eligible for British Citizenship due to his father.

And no form RN ever filed.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Haven't seen you quoting Marshall and Bayard lately. There for awhile you couldn't look at one of these threads without some example of Jeff quoting Marshall as COMPLETELY AGREEING WITH BAYARD, who COMPLETELY AGREED WITH JEFF.

Now that it has been shown that Neither one of them ever agreed with you, your incidence of falsely asserting this claim beyond supportable evidence has dropped to nothing.

You routinely conflate the most ambiguous or innocuous words as having complete and total agreement with your position when in fact, they are either incidental, irrelevant or ambiguous to your argument.

In other words, you have a bad habit of putting your words into the mouths of "Authorities." (And attempting to assert such when they are not.) You conflate one thing to another, then that thing to a third, and then you assert that the first thing is exactly equal to the last thing.

You may be fooling yourself, but you are not fooling anyone else. You simply have a wishful thinking manner of argument and a bad habit of thinking everything you read can be understood as supporting your position when it is at best dubious. You simply lack objectivity and intellectual honesty.

[the scotsman]

Sorry, but I don’t understand why as the greatest nation of immigrants on earth, people are insistent that the Pres. must be US-born.

[Jeff Winston]

Why was there inaction? Because James Madison FULLY SUPPORTED Ambassador Armstrong's decision.

If he had "fully supported" Ambassador Armstrong's decision, then he would never have sent a letter completely contradicting and absolutely reversing Armstrong's decision.

You're an idiot. Seriously. You need help.

[Jeff Winston]

Then why on earth should we accept it for Presidential eligibility? It is an unnatural creation of congress, not a characteristic of natural law.

The context of my comment was the "divided citizenship" of a husband having one citizenship, and a wife having a different citizenship. That is what you were talking about, and it's what I responded to.

I wasn't referring to dual citizenship of a single person, which was recognized by the US Supreme Court as far back as 1795, and which was held by Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison while serving as President.

Different concept.

And it is obviously a concept that frankly didn't bother the Founders and their generation that much, as long as the person holding it was loyal to the United States, because if they had, they would've raised a stink about it and forced Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison to renounce their French citizenship.

[Jeff Winston]

Your words ring hollow. You know that is nonsense. For Roberts to have falsely claimed that the book was a summation of the work of the Pennsylvania Supreme court, and were it not true there would have been an instantaneous and immediate uproar.

ROBERTS NEVER CLAIMED THAT HIS BOOK WAS THE WORK OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT.

How could anyone say it any clearer?

ROBERTS' WORK WAS HIS OWN COMMENTARY ON THE PREVIOUS WORK OF THE PA SUPREME COURT.

The Supreme Court wrote out a LIST of laws. They gave a LIST, with the TITLES of the laws, and a reference as to what book the laws could be found in. THAT'S IT.

YEARS later, Samuel Roberts took their LIST, and wrote out a book that contained not just a list, but the ACTUAL TEXT of each law. All in one handy book. And he added some of HIS OWN commentary.

It is clear from his Preface that the work was entirely his own.

Only a complete moron, or a simple liar, would claim that Roberts' book was the work of the PA Supreme Court.

If I put together a book writing out the text of all of the real estate laws of the State of California in a single volume, and add some commentary on those laws, I AM THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK. NOT THE LEGISLATURE, OR THE SUPREME COURT, OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, neither of which has a damn thing to do with it.

You need some help. Seriously.

[Jeff Winston]

Haven't seen you quoting Marshall and Bayard lately. There for awhile you couldn't look at one of these threads without some example of Jeff quoting Marshall as COMPLETELY AGREEING WITH BAYARD, who COMPLETELY AGREED WITH JEFF.

Now that it has been shown that Neither one of them ever agreed with you, your incidence of falsely asserting this claim beyond supportable evidence has dropped to nothing.

No, it hasn't. You're an idiot.

And how often do you want me to quote them? I can quote them again if you like. Marshall said he found only one small error in Bayard's book, and "natural born citizen" wasn't it.

Bayard, by the way, was the grandson of UNITED STATES SENATOR NUMBER ONE AND SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION RICHARD BASSETT.

And Bayard's father was an important early leader as well.

Marshall, Bayard, Washington, the First Congress, Story, Kent, and literally every significant authority in the early United States are ALL in agreement that you and the other birthers are all full of crap.

It is literally unanimous.

[kabumpo]

You don’t understand international law. I will walk you through it. His father was a Cuban citizen. He entered the US on a Cuban passport in 1957. Since you seem not to be a history buff, I’ll add - two years before the Castro takeover.
His father continued to be a Cuban citizen, regardless of what later occurred in Cuba. He entered Canada on a Cuban passport. His citizenship was automatically passed on to his son. This is true of all fathers and their children all over the world.
There is no reason to believe that he would have been shot if he returned to Cuba, and it is irrelevant to his legal status as a Cuban citizen.

[kabumpo]

Cruz Sr. did not come here as a refugee. That is disinformation being promulgated by the Cruz campaign.

[kabumpo]

He renounced his citizenship.

[entropy12]

Cruz does NOT need to be naturalized. He was US citizen by birth because his mother was a US citizen at the time of birth.

[entropy12]

Barry was born in Kenya according to his own grandmother.
A computer generated Hawaii BC does not make you a born citizen.

[Forgotten Amendments]

I once had dual US/Chilean citizenship. Boy, I wish I’d kept it!

[skr]

http://www.naturalgod.com/0.996CanadaCitizenshipActwithPreamble.pdf

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/legacy/chap-5.asp#chap5-2

[Ray76]

Ted Cruz was born "Rafael Edward Cruz" December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a US citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father.

His mother is US citizen Eleanor Darragh.

His father is Cuban citizen Rafael B. Cruz. (naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2005)

Eleanor Darragh and Rafael B. Cruz were residents of Canada for at least four years from 1970, possibly earlier, until 1974. They conducted business there as Rafael B. Cruz and Associates, Ltd.

It appears he is in law a natural born citizen of Canada (Canadian Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-19, s. 5(1,3))

Revised Statutes of Canada 1970:

Accessed at:
http://ia700401.us.archive.org/10/items/revisedstatutes197001uoft/revisedstatutes197001uoft.pdf

Biographical info:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120428-senate-candidate-ted-cruz-aims-to-pick-up-mantle-of-reagan.ece

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20111025-a-tighter-lipped-cruz-lets-others-fill-in-blanks-on-cuban-fathers-exodus.ece

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/04/08/ted-cruz-father-and-inspiration-talks-about-latinos-conservatives-and-american/

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/04/15/ted-cruz-texas-answer-to-marco-rubio/

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Cruz-s-life-defies-simplification-3946523.php

[Ray76]

Cruz is a naturalized US citizen (8 U.S.C. § 1401(g))