No, Canada: Sen. Ted Cruz has formally shed his dual citizenship (2014)

Dallas Morning News ^ | 6/10/14 | Todd J. Gillman

[jimbo123]

Alberta-born Sen. Ted Cruz has given up his Canadian dual citizenship. The renunciation became official on May 14, roughly 9 months after he learned he wasn't only an American.

Cruz received notification by mail on Tuesday at his home in Houston.

"He's pleased to receive the notification and glad to have this process finalized," said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.

Cruz's birth in Canada was never a secret. But it proved a political liability, with detractors taunting him as "Canadian Ted" and critics suggesting that his birthplace made him ineligible to run for president.

The dual citizenship came as a surprise to Cruz and his parents when The Dallas Morning News reported on it last August.

[MMaschin]

No - it's not.

Do people honestly believe that liberal activist judges are going to avoid the argument the way that conservative judges have?

1) The Republicans, and conservative judges avoided the issue out of fear of being called racists, liberal judges do not have that concern.
2) Obama provided a birth certificate showing that he has born in the State of Hawaii.

All a liberal judge has to do is cite SCOTUS precedent of Minor v. Happersett . In this case, a women in Missouri sued the SOS of Missouri demanding the right to vote, because voting was a right of Citizenship, and the 14th Amendment made her a US Citizen.

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

So, the court determined that Minor did not become a US Citizen as a result of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, because she was already a citizen, because she was what the Constitution recognized as a "natural-born citizen", explicitly, because she was born in the US to two US Citizen parents.

Some argue that the above is not precedent, and was merely dicta, but that is clearly not the case. How is that known? Because the SCOTUS cites that part of the ruling in another case it heard - Ex Parte Lockwood. In Minor the SCOTUS construed the legal term-of-art natural-born Citizen, and in Ex parte Lockwood the Court cites it;

"In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution."

If the above Supreme Court precedent is not enough, then in order to dispel the myth that "Citizen at birth" equates to "natural-born Citizen", all you need to do is look at the rules of Constitutional construction, and the principle of verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent - words should be interpreted to give them some effect. If the two terms above were equal, then there would be no meaning giving effect to the word 'natural', therefore the definition would not be valid. The writers clearly intended for the word to have some meaning, otherwise it would not be there.

The word 'natural', in the term-of-art 'natural born Citizen' is a reference to 'natural law'. Natural law is law that exists without 'positive law' (written laws created by governments). So, the term 'natural born Citizen' means exactly this - someone who would still be a Citizen without need of any positive (man made) law.

The framers relied heavily on Vattel and his The Law of Nations when creating the Country. Ironically this is the book that a few years back there were a number of stories that George Washington never returned to the library.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm



I believe there is a 100% chance that a liberal judge will rule him ineligible. They will argue that since Obama was born in Hawaii, and his mom was a Citizen, he fits the definition, but since Cruz was born in Canada, he does not.

The above is not what I want to see happen, but as conservatives we do not have 1) the race card to avoid scrutiny, and 2) the media to bury it's head in the sand. If Cruz runs, and gets the nomination, you will first see legal analysts on every liberal news outlet citing the above cases, and declaring him ineligible. And then a liberal judge will rule that yes, he is ineligible.

[VanDeKoik]

“I believe there is a 100% chance that a liberal judge will rule him ineligible”

And they will wait until October.

The mother of all “October surprises”.

Cruz would need a 100% win all all the way up to SCOTUS. Hillary will need only ONE.

[poconopundit]

Yes, I agree. He had to know about it because of who he is — a Constitutional lawyer par excellence. He even argued before the Supreme Court.

Why he waited so long to get this done is a mystery.

[PghBaldy]

There is something very odd when the past few elections, we have had candidates born abroad, born here to aliens, and a mixture of these facts. Just very bizarre.

[tumblindice]

I have the same trepidations about Cruz as I have about Obama on the NBC issue: American mothers, foreign fathers, with the only difference being that Cruz is upfront about being foreign-born, while most of us think Obama’s a damned liar on his place of birth, along with many other things.

OTOH, off point, I’m sure Cruz and his father have strong thoughts on a tyrannical, strong central government taking private property simply because ... it can.
So I would think he might consider defenestrating the Dept. of the Interior/BLM and then returning state land to the states.
(As well as `decrapitating’ a number of other worse-than-useless federal agencies, although he seems to usually be behind Trump and the Free Republic `power-curve’ generally on such things.)

But back to the point, it’s the same argument we had in 2007 about Obama, with many of us here wanting him challenged, remember, with others insisting we had to control Congress, so Congress didn’t do jack) and I’m remaining consistent eight years later as well as pointing out:
“Norm Was Right!”
Any other position is `special pleading’. Someone should lay out a convincing case for why Cruz is eligible (besides, “Because he’s my boy, and screw you Jack.’); you can be sure the `rats will try to show that he’s not, and the question impacts his eligibility for the VP job, if Trump keeps shooting 7s & 11s.
In any event he would be an amazing member of any conservative cabinet.

[MamaTexan]

He could never run for President of the United States.

It's been that way for a very long time. From the decision of Wong Kim Ark-

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,

Cruz is my Senator and I voted for him twice...but he is not Natural born.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

If he was dumb enough to get rid of a great second citizenship document, that’s one more reason to question his judgment.

[Daniel Ramsey]

Cruz isn’t going to just seal his records?

[Carry_Okie]

Desperation is the mother of intervention.

[Red Steel]

Here is Grayson. He may be kooky, but he is salivating for Cruz to win:

-snip-

“GRAYSON: I don’t know, the Constitution says natural born Americans, so now we’re counting Canadians as natural born Americans? How does that work? I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he’s in eligible.

COLMES: So you’re saying should he get the nomination, Alan
Grayson will file a lawsuit against his candidacy.

GRAYSON: Absolutely! Call me crazy but I think the President of America should be an American. “

-end snip-

[GBA]

When did Cruz's dad become a Canadian citizen?

From what little I've read, he and his wife moved to Canada not long after he graduated from college in Texas. He may have had to leave the US due to his student visa from Cuba expiring when he graduated? Not sure...

Mr. and Mrs. Cruz settled in Canada, starting a business and family there. Was he a Canadian citizen when baby Ted was born?

If he was, then Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Canadian father and an American mother.

That would make Ted a Canadian by birth and by his father.

I believe they lived in Canada until Ted was 4 yo, moving to the US in 1974? I'm not sure about the dates, but I think that's close.

If Ted Cruz is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the US, then pretty much everyone with an American parent born anywhere in the world is a "Natural Born American Citizen" and that is in no way possible using the language and assumed intent of the Founding Fathers requiring a NBC to be POTUS.

Nor is that something I believe or would vote for, which is exactly what you are doing by voting for Ted for POTUS.

What would be the point of even mentioning NBC for ONLY the POTUS if NBC status was so meaningless? Why would otherwise smart and thoughtful people do that for a position of such power?

I also believe that obama, along with the Dreams of his Father, were exactly what the FFs were trying to spare US from.

I don't want to piss that protection away forever for anyone, no matter how exceptional he/she or the times might be.

We've almost survived obama. Why risk another, perhaps even more foreign cult of personality figure in the pocket of who knows what?

Born in America to American parents is the most fundamental, and legal, definition of the Natural Born American identity and I am glad that Trump is bringing it up now. Perhaps it will get settled this time?

Questioning obama's NBC status became "racist" so it will be interesting to see if "racist" still works or if another word will have to be used for the NBC Cruz deniers.

[DMZFrank]

Had Cruz been born in 1933 under the identical birth circumstances that he was born into in 1970, than he would not even have been a US citizen. The Cable Act, passed in 1934, allowed a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country, to transmit US citizenship onto the newborn child for the first time.

Article II, Section I clause 5, was ratified in 1791 with the rest of the constitution, long before the Cable Act.. Article I has not been modified by any subsequent amendment. Accordingly, the original intent and meaning of Article II stands absent any such constitutional amendment.

The purpose of Article II, Section I clause 5 was to prevent undue foreign influence on the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY thru a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The framers took their definition for NBC from Emmerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations, the 212th paragraph of which was quoted in it’s entirety in the 1814 Venus Merchantman decision. The Law of Nations is referred to in Article I of the constitution. That definition referred to an NBC as being born of two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation. That definition was cited in the 1868 case of Minor vs Hapersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US. De Vattel has been cited and accepted in dozens of SCOTUS and federal lower court rulings.

The authors of the 14th amendment, Senators Howard Jacob and Rep. Bingham also defined an NBC in similar terms.

Obama is the very embodiment and personification of the REASON that the framers put those protections into the constitution. By ignoring it, we have opened ourselves to the anti American and unconstitutional tyranny that Obama poses to our constitutional republic.

Ted Cruz is head and shoulders the best candidate in the race. He is a patriot who loves this country and it’s people. He is intellectually and philosophically superior to ANYONE else in the race. As much as I admire him, He CANNOT be considered a natural born citizen, as he is a citizen by statute. He was born with THREE countries (The US, Canada, and Cuba thru his father) having a legitimate claim on his allegiance from birth, whether he wanted it or not. I believe in the constitution and the rule of law, NOT in the cult of personality.

[X-spurt]

The duality was bestowed by Canada, as per Canadian law, not at the request by Cruz.

The Canadian dual citizenship has no effect on the established requirements for Natural Born Citizen of the USA. Those clearly state that a person born outside the USA to a mother of USA citizenship is NBC.

[JoSixChip]

Those clearly state that a person born outside the USA to a mother of USA citizenship is NBC.

Oh, I gotta see the source for that. I think you are completely making that up.

[X-spurt]

“So what passport parents and kids had?”

Please explain that obtuse question.

If you are referring to Cruz parents, his Mother holds a USA, his Father, at the time of Ted’s birth held a Cuban, now USA.
In 1970, children did not need Passports if they travelled with parent.

[X-spurt]

Either you asked the wrong question or the idiot at the Consulate told you wrong.

[X-spurt]

Ever hear of Standing?

[X-spurt]

Grayson will not have Standing necessary to bring such suit.

Anyone believing anything from Grayson or Colmes needs to see me about this bargain bridge I have for sale.

[Marie]

My son would’ve been in the exact same situation as McCain. His father was a service member serving in Panama when he was born. He was born of two US Citizens on foreign soil.

If you recall, it wasn’t so cut and dry. It took a house resolution to make him eligible.

But there’s one line in that resolution that may still bring someone like my son’s eligibility into question:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it”

My son was born in a German hospital. Not on a military base. By the terms of THIS resolution that was supposed to clear things up for Army Brats, my son may still not be eligible.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

[X-spurt]

That resolution was not the Law. No ‘Resolution’ of the Senate is law, it is merely some Senators saying those where their beliefs.

It was a resolution in part to give cover to nobama, who did have an issue. It is also not unlikely that McCain had some role in promoting the necessity for such resolution. If you note at the bottom of the Resolution is states “That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” Article II, Section 1 is the law the Senators simply restated.

The issue at that time and which brought very liberal Senators to make the Resolution naming McCain, was that of Obama’s mother not being old enough to bestow NBC upon her son (maybe born outside the USA and many concerned about the obvious fakery of the Hawaii BC. By them “Resolving” McCain that in itself gave political cover to obama if that question was officially raised).

Sorry you were apparently misinformed by some Consulate employee. It may have been a cute remark, but it was incorrect. Article II, Section 1 is the law and germane toward Ted Cruz NBC.