Well, you used to (prior in 1978) be able to lose it by being named Aldo Mario Bellei, have one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, have dual Italian and American citizenship, live your life in Italy, make sporadic trips back to the US , use an Italian passport and fail to deploy with the US military. But those conditions no longer exist, so you can’t any more unless you are naturalized.
Aldo Mario Bellei (P) was born in Italy to an American mother and an Italian father. Bellei was issued a United States passport when he was eleven years old and visited the United States several times. His was warned of the requirements under the Act the last time he successfully renewed his passport before losing his citizenship.
Bellei registered with the American Consul in Rome in compliance with United States Selective Service laws and took and passed an army physical examination. He received several additional warnings that he was in danger of losing his citizenship. Soon after he turned 24 he was advised orally by the American Embassy in Rome that he had lost his citizenship for FAILURE TO SATISFY THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
It should be noted that the original trial court ruled the statute under which Mr. Bellei was stripped of his citizenship to be unconstitutional. And as I mentioned above and previously, that statute is no longer in the US Code..
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a Polish-born man who had voted in an Israeli election after having become a naturalized U.S. citizen, but the Supreme Court decided that Afroyim’s right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court overruled one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.
The Afroyim decision opened the way for a wider acceptance of dual (or multiple) citizenship in United States law. The Bancroft Treaties—a series of agreements between the United States and other nations which had sought to limit dual citizenship following naturalization—were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable.
The impact of Afroyim v. Rusk was narrowed by a later case, ROGERS v. BELLEI (1971), in which the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment safeguarded citizenship only when a person was born or naturalized in the United States, and that Congress retained authority to regulate the citizenship status of a person who was born outside the United States to an American parent. However, the specific law at issue in Rogers v. Bellei—a requirement for a minimum period of U.S. residence that Bellei had failed to satisfy—WAS REPEALED BY CONGRESS IN 1978.. As a consequence of revised policies adopted in 1990 by the United States Department of State, it is now (in the words of one expert) “VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it.”
There is no way in f***ing H3ll that a "natural citizen" would be deprived of his citizenship for failure to reside, or failure to be inducted.
That the law was subsequently changed is irrelevant. That Cruz would have met the requirements of such a law, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Supreme Court determined that a citizenship which is granted by congress can be removed by congress.
And now I think you are just being dishonest. You understand the point, you just won't admit it.
Help me understand something here.
The three of you vehemently argue that virtually anyone is a natural born citizen if one of the parents is American, regardless of where they were born. Do I have that correct?
If the definition of natural born citizen is born in the country of two citizen parents, a condition that in no way allows other countries to have ANY claims whatsoever on this type of citizen, why are you not only supporting but actively trying to convince others of a definition that allows virtually anyone with one American parent (regardless of place of birth) to be eligible to be President and in charge of our military, given the fact that the other parent’s country (or the country of birth) has legal claims and or jurisdiction over that person?
Why would you not want the most restrictive (conservative) definition?
Why would any American support a position that would allow the President of the United States of America to legally be subject to a foreign power?
Your support of any other definition of natural born Citizen as born in the country to citizen parents, weakens America. It does not strengthen it.
What is your end game here?