Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JayGalt

Read 639 (Dutchess47) and 735 (me). I don’t know what 1952 law you are referring to by the way.


819 posted on 03/18/2016 9:07:09 AM PDT by SFConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies ]


To: SFConservative

Yes I saw those two comments 639 & 735 but after I made the post you replied to. I comment as I read through the thread, perhaps better in future to read to the end and come back but drawbacks with that approach too. You both covered ground my post touched upon and amplified the 1947-1977 conditions in post 639.

I don’t know where I found a ref to the law as 1952 when I posted but now it appears to have been the 1947 Law which had minimal changes until 1977, as so has several dates, including 1952, for those minor changes. The point I was making is that in the period of time 1947-1977 a child born in Canada that was entitled to a citizenship other than Canadian needed to decide which to claim in the Canadian system, Canada would not recognize them as dual citizens. That does not imply that Canadian law binds the other country involved (USA in this case).

Ms Cruz could have chosen Canadian, in fact to be able to get a Canadian birth certificate she needed to make that determination, and the US Government could still have awarded Raphael(Ted) US citizenship based on her citizenship and her application. She would have had to apply for that citizenship to be recognized by documenting her & the child’s records with the consulate or the State department.


873 posted on 03/18/2016 11:30:41 AM PDT by JayGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson