Posted on 01/07/2016 11:03:21 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97% has repeatedly defended his eligibility to be president this week, but wondering whether his Canadian birthplace would prevent him from running for the office has been on his mind since at least childhood, a classmate of his tells CNN.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Cruz arrived in the world an American because of his mother.
That is a correct statement assuming she is an American citizen. There is no proof of her birth. This is very troublesome. If Cruz can’t prove his mother was a citizen then he is not NBC.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Cruz and I’d like to see him president if Trump fails but we just can’t close our eyes to the fact that his mother may not have been a US citizen. That would be wrong. I value the Constitution above any single individual.
Cruz arrived in the world an American because of his mother.
That is a correct statement assuming she is an American citizen. There is no proof of her birth. This is very troublesome. If Cruz can’t prove his mother was a citizen then he is not NBC.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Cruz and I’d like to see him president if Trump fails but we just can’t close our eyes to the fact that his mother may not have been a US citizen. That would be wrong. I value the Constitution above any single individual.
Boo boo. Trump doesn't owe Teddy anything, except to beat the pants off him. This is not for a participation trophy. The winner gets to be president of the United States. Trump warned Teddy not to attack him at the last debate. Cruz couldn't resist and said Trump was pro-amnesty. So when the WaPo became the 5th paper to ask Trump about Cruz' eligibility, he decided to stop saying "no comment" and give his "opinion." If Teddy can't handle it -- or defend it -- he should go back to being a Senator or lawyer.
Tell me how Scalia would vote.
“The language and meaning of the Constitutional provision as to “natural born citizen” permit dual citizenship.”
No, it does not and cannot possibly do so, because statutory law of immigration and naturalization is the exact opposite in meaning to natural law, and natural law is the fundamental basis for the definition of natural born citizenship.
“Since there is no international convention on citizenship, comity among nations tends to favor acceptance of multiple citizenship.”
Those are more false statements. There are and have been numerous “international conventions on citizenship.” Example: The European Convention on Nationality (E.T.S. No. 166).
Wikipedia -— Multiple Citizenship
History[edit]
Up until the late 19th century, nations often decided who they claimed as their citizens or subjects, and did not recognize any other nationalities they held. Many states did not recognize the right of their citizens to renounce their citizenship without permission, with the feudal theory of perpetual allegiance to the sovereign still common. This meant that people could hold multiple citizenships, with none of their nations recognizing any other of their citizenships. This state of affairs sometimes led to international incidents, notably the War of 1812, triggered by British impressment of American seamen who were alleged to be British subjects into naval service.[2]
In the aftermath of the 1867 Fenian Rising, Irish-Americans who had gone to Ireland to participate in the uprising and were caught were charged with treason, as the British authorities considered them to be British subjects. This outraged many Irish-Americans, to which the British responded by pointing out that, just like British law, American law also recognized perpetual allegiance.[2] As a result, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1868, which granted Americans the right to freely renounce their U.S. citizenship. Britain followed suit with a similar law, and years later, signed a treaty agreeing to treat British subjects who had become U.S. citizens as no longer holding British nationality. During this time, diplomatic incidents had also arisen between the United States and several other European countries over their tendency to conscript naturalized American citizens visiting their former homelands. In response, the US government negotiated agreements with various European states known as the Bancroft Treaties, under which the signatories pledged to treat the voluntary naturalization of a former citizen or national with another sovereign nation as a renunciation of their citizenship.[2]
As a result, the theory of perpetual allegiance largely fell out of favor with governments during the late 19th century. With the consensus of the time being that dual citizenship would only lead to diplomatic problems, more governments began prohibiting it, and revoking the nationality of citizens holding another nationality. By the mid-20th century, dual nationality was largely prohibited worldwide, although there were exceptions. For example, a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings permitted Americans born with citizenship in another country to keep it without losing their U.S. citizenship.[2][3]
At the 1930 League of Nations Codification Conference, an attempt was made to codify nationality rules into a universal worldwide treaty, the 1930 Hague Convention, whose chief aims would be to completely abolish both statelessness and dual citizenship. It proposed laws that would have reduced both, but in the end was ratified by only twenty nations.[2]
However, the consensus against dual nationality began to erode due to changes in social mores and attitudes. By the late 20th century it was becoming gradually accepted again.[2] Many states were lifting restrictions on dual citizenship. For example, the British Nationality Act 1948 removed restrictions on dual citizenship in the United Kingdom, the 1967 Afroyim v. Rusk ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited the U.S. government from involuntarily stripping citizenship from Americans over dual citizenship, and the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1976, removed restrictions on dual citizenship in Canada. The number of states allowing multiple citizenship further increased after a treaty in Europe requiring signatories to limit dual citizenship lapsed in the 1990s, and countries with high emigration rates began permitting it to maintain links with their respective diasporas.[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship]
“Well before the Constitution was written, it was recognized that citizenship at birth could be based on the citizenship of the parents instead of simply the location of birth.”
The jus sanguinis doctrine of citizenship originated in prehistoric eras. Jus soli doctrine is more recent, and it is a variant of the jus sanguinis doctrine intended to accommodate expansions of the society. neither doctrine is anything new, since they were in use into prehistoric eras.
“Diplomacy and commerce often had need for lengthy foreign postings, which inevitably meant that spouses would come along and that there would be births abroad. It was not thought that a child could fairly and properly be denied the citizenship of its parents simply because the child was born abroad.”
That’s nonsense, because it was common practice to deny citizenship to aliens and the children of aliens in many societies. The children of alien parents resident in the United States did not qualify for U.S. citizenship at birth until the late part of the 19th Century. although they were born in the United States with an alien father and mother, they had to apply for naturalization to become U.S. citizens.
“And, if you think it through, you may come to believe as I do, that this point is also connected to the rationale against anchor baby citizenship. The mere happenstance of birth on US soil should not be permitted to confer citizenship when the parents are here illegally. The citizenship of such children ought to be based on their parent’s citizenship, not on having hopped the border.”
It was until two SCOTUS decisions falsely changed the laws using false documents and false analysis to do so.
Read the entire sentence, 'Cruz identified himself as a dual citizen BECAUSE I pointed to him and said he was a dual citizen." The "because" is an explanation for Cruz's action of self-identification.
So your telling me that two of my children, born in Berlin Germany are not considered natural born. Funny since no where on my paperwork, or when I applied for passports for them are they referred to as Naturalized. The FS-240 is titled Report of “Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America”, I was not required to submit a Certificate of Naturalization to obtain those passports. How do you explain that?
This is very unfortunate. I didn’t really look into the matter as I was under the impression that Cruz was merely born to 2 parents of US citizenship. According to the info in your post that is simply not the case. I think Cruz is a patriot and loves this country, but that won’t make a lick of difference. If he is the nominee the press will crawl through hot broken glass to make this an issue. There is no way the left will let it go.
Excellent point. Often in statutory language, the plural shows up simply because a class of objects or individuals is being discussed, not because any specific relationship exists within some pair of individuals within that set.
Peace,
SR
Bogus analysis. See my post at 150.
Peace,
SR
Those children might not be able to run for President. That is a reality.
Section 349 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. nationals are subject to loss of nationality if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality. Briefly stated, these acts include:
obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon one’s own application after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or its political subdivisions after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA)
If indeed Ms. Cruz became a Canadian citizen before Ted’s birth, then Ted is not even a U.S. citizen. It pains me greatly to say this because I really like Cruz and he is a great senator. I am a bigger Trump fan though. Foremost I want what the laws of this nation require.
If you want to be a strict word constructionist then you should hear what Stevens said about the clause in the oral argument of Nguyen.
“...Read the entire sentence...”
But I did read the entire sentence — the assertion is from the classmate, as in it was the classmate’s idea to claim “dual citizenship”, not Cruz’s.
If it was Cruz’s idea in the first place, that might be something. But we know that Cruz was not aware he had official Canadian citizenship until 9 months before he renounced it. The article can’t be reconciled with that. Hence, the entire article seems a strawman argument from the get go.
Ted Cruz the brilliant Harvard Law graduate certainly knew he was a dual citizen. I have no idea why he lied about it when caught.
So then why does it say "Cruz identified himself as a dual citizen"? As I said, the "because I pointed to him..." is an explanation for why Cruz acknowledged his dual citizenship status. The student also says that Cruz had been wondering about his natural born status from youth. So Cruz, the super smart constitutional scholar, wouldn't bother to wonder about that Canadian birth certificate he had and think to himself "Hmmm, maybe I'm a dual citizen"?
Texans elected him to the US Senate not knowing he was dual Canadian citizen.
It was not until a 2013 Dallas Morning News article that Cruz acknowledged his Canadian citizenry publicly. In 2014, the senator publicly renounced his Canadian citizenship altogether.
Cruz consistently depicted himself as "latino" Yet his family bgrnd indicates only his father is Spanish; his mother is of two nationalities, Italian and Irish from each of her parents.
Cruz ran in Texas as a full-fledged latino (to tap into the wealth of latino votes). Cruz even convinced the Senate biographer that he was the first latino elected to the Senate (besides Rubio).
As the immigration issue grew negative in the world of politics, being known as a latino has lost its luster.
==============================================
WIKI The 1803 edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, noted that the natural born citizen clause is "a means of security against foreign influence" and that "[t]he admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."
=============================================
NOTE At the time, King George, and lordly England, were the colonists' boogeymen. It was feared the wealthy Brits could surreptitiously buy their way into our new country's councils and wreak havoc.
====================================================
OLD THINGS SEEM SUDDENLY NEW AGAIN Cruz's wife is a Goldman Sachs exec.
Mrs Cruz served on the North American Union task force, and supported their report called---'Building a North American Community."
The North/South border effort was sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
Translated into English, that means forget US sovereignty....just eradicate US borders.
Canada is under the jurisdiction of England.
If that's true it could be a problem....although if his mother is still alive so she should be able to provide a explanation.
I think there may need to be a change in law for the future.
I believe that any child born of a US citizen (current or former) should by default, have American citizenship. I say this because a parent who renounces their US citizenship is in effect punishing their later children without their consent by denying them the benefits of being an American citizen.
For example, If my parents had moved to Canada and renounced their American citizenship and I was later born in Canada, I would be denied US citizenship even though my ancestors had been in what is the United States since the 1620’s and at least one of my great grandfathers fought in the American Revolution.
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.