[2pets]

"The statute on the books on the day Cruz was born made him a citizen on that day."

-------------------------------------------------

No, it did not. The circumstances of Cruz's birth fail to meet any of the requirements of Public Law 414, Sec 301.

Subsection 7 would seem to be the one that applies to Cruz, but there's a problem with the "prior to" requirement. Two different terms: "prior to" and "at any time prior to" were used in Sec 301. They are not the same.

Looking at two different Sec 301 subsections:

(4) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States

(5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person

Pages 713-74: Public Law 414, 1952

Subsection 7 uses the requirement "prior to." Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada prior to Cruz's birth. Words matter.

Cruz doesn't qualify for US citizenship at birth under the law in effect at the time. Cruz is neither a born citizen, nor a national born citizen.

[Cboldt]

You are citing the wrong statutory authority. Cruz's claim to US citizenship had to be adjudicated, wither for purposes of obtaining an FS-545, Certification of Birth Abroad, or for purposes of obtaining a US passport.

Somewhere in my posting history you'll find where I corrected another poster on this point - even produced a link to the relevant law after he called me a liar. Turns out he was just incompetent.

[Yosemitest]

Hey DUMMY, you should RESEARCH a topic, BEFORE you expose YOUR INCOMPETENCE !

TED CRUZ's father, 74-year-old Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.
"I came to this country legally," Cruz's father says.
"I came here with a legal visa, and ... every step of the way, I have been here legally."

In an interview near his home outside Dallas, the elder Cruz says that as a teenager, he fought alongside Fidel Castro's forces to overthrow Cuba's U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista.
He was caught by Batista's forces, he says, and jailed and beaten before being released.
It was 1957, and Cruz decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

"Then the only other thing that I needed was an exit permit from the Batista government," Cruz recalls.
"A friend of the family, a lawyer friend of my father, basically bribed a Batista official to stamp my passport with an exit permit."

The Rafael Cruz that his son Ted portrays is a kind of Cuban Horatio Alger - - arriving in the U.S. with only $100, learning English on his own and washing dishes seven days a week for 50 cents an hour.

"Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father,
"and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
His father went there AFTER having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. WHEN his student visa ran out.
He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says.
"And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen ...

Now about the "for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, ".

WHERE do you think he RESIDED ... WHILE he paid his way through the University of Texas ?

Do you think he resided in Canada WHILE he ATTENDED the University of Texas ?

And as far as your "STRAW MAN" ACCUSATION about

"Subsection 7 ... but there's a problem with the "prior to" requirement.
Two different terms: "prior to" and "at any time prior to" were used in Sec 301.
They are not the same.
... Pages 713-74: Public Law 414, 1952 Subsection 7 uses the requirement "prior to." Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada prior to Cruz's birth.
Words matter.
Cruz doesn't qualify for US citizenship at birth under the law in effect at the time.
Cruz is neither a born citizen, nor a national born citizen."

Oh, BULL !
Cruz's mother was NEVER a citizen of Canada, and ALWAYS MAINTAINED HER United States Citizenship.
Your 'Two different terms: "prior to" and "at any time prior to" ' amount to NOTHING !
Your "STRAW MAN" questions ARE IRRELEVANT !

[CpnHook]

Subsection 7 uses the requirement "prior to." Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada prior to Cruz's birth. Words matter.

Yes, they do. And if I'm following your argument here, you're trying to assert that "prior to" means Cruz's mother had to have been in the U.S. in the period immediately preceding his birth. If that's the argument (and I can't fathom what else you might be saying), then you're misreading the statute.

"(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years[.]"

There are two problems with your argument.

1. The statute requires the citizen parent to have been "physically present" in the U.S. "for a period or periods" totally the requisite time. "Or periods" means these can consist of multiple, non-continuous periods of time. So it matters not that in the final period of time Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada, so long as at some time prior to the birth there was a period or periods of physical presence in the U.S. totaling 10 years, etc. This then has to mean "at any time prior to" or else allowance for multiple periods wouldn't make sense.

2. Your construction would be absurd on it's face. This is a statute applying to a birth abroad. . The statute can't be then purporting to make the mother be physically present in the U.S. for a period ending the date of the birth. Is the mother supposed to have magically crossed the border when she goes into labor? Your reading makes the statute a nullity -- in the case where the citizen parent is the mother it would never apply.

The effort to compare "prior to" with "at any time prior to" was good. But it seems you got preoccupied there and missed the back end where the statute allows multiple periods of time.

Did Cruz's mother meet the 10-year requirement? I don't know if that's been established. But the fact the she was a resident in Canada in the period leading up to the birth doesn't disqualify her.