Posted on 08/19/2013 6:05:19 AM PDT by praytell
WASHINGTON — Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born.
Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say.
That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. On a lunch break from the U.S. Senate, he could head to the nearby embassy — the one flying a bright red maple leaf flag — pull out his Calgary, Alberta, birth certificate and obtain a passport.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
President George Washington and almost half of the Framers of the Constitution say you're wrong.
And James Bayard, backed by Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent, and other leading legal experts of the early United States - says absolutely and categorically that you're wrong.
And of course John Bingham himself NEVER, EVER said that persons born US citizens abroad were ineligible. He NEVER, EVER said it took birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. You can only twist his words to what you want them to have meant, when he described "natural born citizens" as "citizens by birth," when he himself stood absolutely silent and without any objection at all in the House chamber while James Falconer Wilson quoted Rawle's quote that absolutely contradicts your birther crap, and when he and our other Congressmen deliberately dropped the wording you think "proves" your point and substituted "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
So why don't you take your anti-Ted-Cruz, trolling birther crap some place else?
What is nonsense is your attempt to deny Congress a power expressly reserved to them by the Constitution.
You should also take into account the last sentence of Article 1 Section 8:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
But enough of me citing the Constitution, historical facts, and laws of the land. Your turn to start citing references to support your position.
If it did, George Washington would have had to renounce his French citizenship or step down, and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would never have been elected.
Everything you have stated is utter nonsense. Ted Cruz is not eligible. He was born on foreign soil outside the jurisdiction of the United States. A dual citizen is not a natural born Citizen.
It's really not very difficult here.
Naturalization.
That's it.
There are no other citizenship powers given to Congress.
It does not. (See post 104).
It would probably be a good idea for Ted Cruz to specifically renounce any claim to Canadian citizenship. But there is no legal requirement for him to do so in order to be eligible. Being born a United States citizen is enough.
So lets break this down into specific quesitions:
Do you agree that someone who is a US citizen at birth is not naturalized but in fact, was naturally born a US Citizen?
Do you agree that someone born on US soil/jurisdiction is a US Citizen at birth?
Do you agree that US Citizenship at birth can be obtained even if born outside the boundaries of the United States?
You are incorrect. The Constitution does not limit Congress to just one type of rules. I states “Rules of Naturalization” which include those who need naturalization and those that do not need naturalization (naturally born citizen).
But enough of me citing the Constitution, historical facts and the laws of the land. Time for you to starting citing references to support your position.
As for dual citizenship, 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens, while serving as President. Nobody cared.
As for the other:
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)
The above quote was part of Bayard's discussion of qualifications to be President and Presidential eligibility.
Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was read and approved by the Great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and by the famous Chancellor James Kent, as well as other legal experts of the early United States.
Not one single person ever said he was wrong about his understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant.
Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(b); (66 Stat. 163, 236)
Cruz is defined by law “citizen”
It would be smart for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship, but there is no legal requirement for him to do so.
3 of our first 4 Presidents - Washington, Jefferson and Madison - were dual citizens with France. While serving as US President.
Dual citizenship does not interfere with natural born citizenship, particularly when it is acquired at birth. That is precisely Senator Cruz’s situation.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/40/naturalization
Now, where's your source that says Congress's naturalization powers apply to "natural born Citizens?"
Of course it does.
Have you not read Federalist 68? Or Jay's letter to Washington?
Just where, in those conversations, did they believe it was okay for someone born with foreign citizenship, and foreign allegiance owed, to be eligibly for Commander in Chief?
And that meaning was revealed when in 1790, George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, and the Congress, many of whom helped produce the Constitution just 3 years earlier, decided to pass and sign the Naturalization Law of 1790 in which they used the expression "natural born citizen" to describe a child born overseas to US citizen parents.
That is a fact. It is an irreversible fact. The Founders used natural born citizen to describe a born overseas citizen.
One off the cuff remark many make at this information is that Congress repealed the 1790 law and replaced it with the 1795 law. First, that has nothing to do with the fact that Congress saw fit to use the term "natural born citizen" to describe a "born overseas citizen".
Second, Most laws that are replaced are repealed. The replacement was much more lengthy and detailed.
Significantly, though, when Congress was making the initial laws of the land, when they had to be concise, precise, and get right to the most important issues, they recognized bloodline citizenship as natural born citizenship.
“3 of our first 4 Presidents - Washington, Jefferson and Madison - were dual citizens with France. While serving as US President.”
Of course they were since they grandfathered themselves in. Jeez!
“3 of our first 4 Presidents - Washington, Jefferson and Madison - were dual citizens with France. While serving as US President.”
Of course they were since they grandfathered themselves in. Jeez!
No.
Does not matter to subject.
Does not matter to subject.
Just look at the situation with collectively NATURALIZED citizens of Puerto Rico as to how one can can be a ‘citizen at birth’ but still not be a natural born Citizen. The two are not one in the same no matter how much it is desired that that they are. Collective naturalization nullifies the argument completely.
As for Mr. Cruz the article states his birth was registered with the US consulate. What if he had not been? Would he still had been a US citizen?
Why does the referenced website indicate BOTH parents must be Citizens to be a citizen AT birth when born outside US boundaries? Is the website incorrect?
Foreign influence in the government was a primary concern of the Framers, especially for the singular office of the Executive.
Framers were also concerned about “illiberality” in the admission of foreigners - they wanted to people the land.
Separating the qualifications for citizenship from the qualifications for office was the solution.
After months of discussion the qualifications for the Executive were at an impasse, no qualification seemed secure from foreign influence, until Jay’s “strong check” suggestion that the Executive “shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
“Natural born citizenship” is not a source of citizenship, it is a quality of citizenship required for an office of government: the Presidency.
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.