Re: Profoundly confused (if not actually disturbed).
Check out what the Supreme Court has to say:
1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution’s Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,
“And 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . .”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
Naturalization defined above by the founders.
Cruz’s mother was in Canada a total of 8 years. His mother and father (formerly a Cuban citizen) both became Canadian citizens. Did she renounce her American citizenship? Does Canada (as many countries do) require someone to renounce?
If so, Cruz was born in Canada to two Canadian parents.
I’m saying that’s a major problem.
Hope that clears up your confusion.
Cruz’s mother was in Canada a total of 8 years. His mother and father (formerly a Cuban citizen) both became Canadian citizens.
Got a link for that?
Cruz's father became a Canadian. But he had no American citizenship to lose. Not so for Cruz's mother. You need to prove her renunciation or STFU!
If so, Cruz was born in Canada to two Canadian parents.
I’m saying that’s a major problem.
A major problem for you, perhaps. But not for the normally informed. Because it's a manufactured fact.
“If so, Cruz was born in Canada to two Canadian parents.”
Would not it be more accurate to state: “Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, both of whom became naturalized Canadian citizens.”?