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"?
“...wouldn’t bother to wonder about that Canadian birth certificate he had and think to himself “Hmmm, maybe I’m a dual citizen”?...”
Because his parents never applied for Canadian citizenship. Google is your friend. He didn’t learn of his Canadian citizenship until later and started the process to renounce it (completed 9 months after he learned of it). He knew he was *born* in Canada, but had no reason to think they automatically processed citizenship for him. They didn’t notify the Cruz family and the Cruz family thought they would need to take some affirmative steps to request citizenship. Since they didn’t, they naturally presumed there was no citizenship.
As to “super smart constitutional scholar”, well he’s quite likely far more knowledgeable on the subject that probably anyone on Free Republic. Then we have the opinion of a congress (that included founding fathers) who a mere three years after the Constitution, wrote the following in the Naturalization Act of 1790:
“...the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as Natural Born Citizens...”
It is the only legislation to use the specific term “Natural Born Citizens”. Subsequent laws have been passed over the years, but it is the only legislation that offers a glimpse into the opinion held by the founding fathers on the matter. Now legally speaking, the only law that actually applies is the law in place when Cruz was born — but my point is that if his circumstance of birth was acceptable to the founding fathers as expressed in the N.A. of 1790, then who am I to disagree with them? Was his mother a US citizen at his birth?
Opinions will vary. But if the founding fathers wrote that it was ok with them, then it’s ok with me too. Folks may not want to vote for Cruz for any reason — from they don’t like his politics to they don’t like the way he looks to they don’t like him running against their preferred candidate. That’s all well and fine. You aren’t required to vote for him. But to say he’s not bonafide when the founding fathers would have accepted him as a candidate with his circumstance of birth - I’ll have to side with the founding fathers.
But good luck with your candidate!