Posted on 04/10/2016 8:21:55 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Nice, Liz!
Manafort rocks!!
They didn't recognize dual citizenship, but if one had grounds to claim citizenship in both countries then one had dual citizenship in fact, even if neither country would admit it.
"The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen.'
It does not say "must" or "shall".
Here are the State department requirements for a child born abroad without a CRBA to obtain a US passport. A US passport is proof of citizenship.
Foreign Birth Documents + Parent(s) Citizenship Evidence
If you claim citizenship through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s), but cannot submit a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth, you must submit all of the following:
Your foreign birth certificate (translated to English),
Evidence of citizenship of your U.S. citizen parent,
Your parents' marriage certificate, and
A statement of your U.S. citizen parent detailing all periods and places of residence or physical presence in the United States and abroad before your birth.
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/passports/information/secondary-evidence.html
Victor Williams is a Columbia Law Professor who atarted
http://disruptivejustice.org/about-victor-williams
So technically Ted is resposible for violating the law and its intent in both countries.
Nice.
Thanks for clarifying.
bfl
Excellent work!
The Framers of the Constitution were not ‘natural born citizens’ having been born on American Soil, so they enacted ‘citizenship’ for themselves so when their children were born on American Soil, they were ‘natural born citizens’...
The 14th Amendment was written for the when the slaves were freed: they would be granted ‘citizenship’ to America and when their children were born on American Soil, they would be ‘natural born Citizens’ on American Soil...
The progression of citizenship goes from the Father to the wife when he marries her, she takes his name, and then when the children are born, they take his name...
If this was not the case at hand, then Cruz’s last name would not be Cruz, it would be Darrugh or Wilson...but Ted Cruz’s name came from his Father hence Cruz...
You can argue anyway you want, but the law is the law, and even though a lot of us tried to prevent obuma from becoming POTUS because his father was NOT born on American soil or have U.S. Citizenship, no body would pay attention...we best this time...
Maybe the Trumpsters should hive Soros some donations to help. Will Soros have enough money after hi finished donating to Kasich.
None have denied Cruz being placed on the ballot.
Cruz's Canadian citizenship was governed by the 1947 Citizenship Act.
Here is the Act
http://historyofrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/statutes/CN_Citizenship.pdf
Section 10 governs naturalization. Under that section Cruz's parents would have been required to reside in Canada for four years before they could apply for Canadian citizenship.
Section 10 of the 1947 Citizenship Act of Canada:
(b) Have been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence therein;
(c) he has resided continuously in Canada for a period of one year immediately preceding the date of the application and, in addition, except where the applicant has served outside of Canada in the armed forces of Canada during time of war or where the applicant is the wife of and resides in Canada to a Canadian citizen, has also resided in Canada for a further period of not less than four years during the previous six years immediately preceding the date of application.
Cruz would be a natural born Canadian citizen under Part 1 Section 5 (a) of the Act:
5. A person, born after the commencement of this Act, is a natural-born Canadian citizen: -
(a) if he is born in Canada or on a Canadian ship:
There is nothing in the Act about first having to give up any other citizenship.
There is a section of the Act that discusses a child with dual citizenship being allowed to renounce their Canadian citizenship if they so choose.
Part III
Section 17. (1) Where a natural-born Canadian citizen, at his birth or during his minority, or any Canadian citizen on marriage, became or becomes under the law of any other country a national or citizen of that country, if, after attaining the full age of twenty-one years, or after the marriage, he makes, while not under disability, and still a national or citizen, a declaration renouncing his Canadian citizenship, he shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.
If Canada did not recognize dual citizenship there would be no reason for them to have Section 17.
Cruz was a natural-born Canadian citizen who "at his birth" "became" "under the law" of the United States, a "citizen of" the United States.
As a US citizen Cruz’s mother was under the jurisdiction of the United States. It doesn’t matter what Canada’s law was, they can’t take US citizenship away from your child by automatically bestowing Canadian citizenship on them. US law is all that matters here and that law bestowed US citizenship on him at birth.
No anchor babies are not NBC, but they can become citizens.
1. Constitutional Convention – “Born a Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen”:
When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Hamilton suggested a presidential eligibility clause:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.
Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.
A President needs to be much more than “born a citizen.”
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
If your last sentence is correct, then Ted Cruz was naturalized at birth, an act of a law; not a natural born citizen.
Being a natural born citizen means that one cannot be anything else, and no act of law affects the citizenship status. For a natural born citizen, born on the soil, AND born to parents who are both citizens, there is no question of divided allegiance, no dual citizenship, no claim of any other citizenship, no question that such child is anything other than 100% citizen of one nation; neither due to geography, nor to parentage.
If Ted were naturalized at some point (still unproven), he might be eligible for the Senate seat he currently holds.
Ted Cruz will never in this lifetime be constitutionally eligible to become president of the USA.
I’m only making the points that
A) Cruz’s mom could not have been a Canadian citizen when he was born in 1970.
and
B) He could have been born with both Canadian and US citizenship.
There is another possibility, which I think is the one that existed. Ted’s father can pass his Cuban citizenship, just as Ted’s mother could. Ted could have been born Canadian with, in addition, claims to both US and Cuban citizenship.
“Ted Cruz wins citizenship battle, eligible to be president – Penn. Supreme Court”
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) can breathe a sigh a relief, knowing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has struck down a lawsuit over his eligibility to be president. However, the case may be appealed in the US Supreme Court.
In a unanimous decision, the State Supreme Court upheld a decision by a lower court that ruled Cruz could legally run for president of the United States. As a result, his name will remain on the ballot during the state’s primary on April 26.
A Pittsburgh resident named Carmon Elliott previously filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania seeking to remove Cruz’s name from the ballot, claiming that the senator did not qualify to run because he was born in Canada. Because of the location of his birth, Elliott argued.
https://www.rt.com/usa/338047-ted-cruz-eligible-citizenship-president/
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.