Posted on 08/19/2013 6:17:17 PM PDT by kristinn
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced Monday evening that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship, less than 24 hours after a newspaper pointed out that the Canadian-born senator likely maintains dual citizenship.
“Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” Cruz said in a statement. “Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator; I believe I should be only an American.”
SNIP
“Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter,” Cruz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The father did not come here as a refugee. That’s a misunderstanding promulgated by Cruz. He came here on a student visa.
Your information is false.
The Panama Canal Zone was, while Guam and Puerto Rico still are, unincorporated territories of the United States. Though persons born there can be statutory U.S. citizens, they are not natural born citizens.
Barry Goldwater was born in an incorporated territory prior to its becoming a state. Arizona was always expected to become a state in the union.
The Panama Canal Zone was leased territory which was still a part of the sovereign nation of Panama. I’ve been contacted by many Freepers who were born in the Canal Zone and have verified the facts as stated - born a statutory U.S. citizen but not a natural born citizen as the land belonged to Panama.
“No distinction is made between territories under the direct control of the federal government, and the overseas territories for this purposes.”
NO. Bwaa-ha-ha!
Get ‘yer facts straight, JC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._territories#Unincorporated_organized_territories
“The current political status of Puerto Rico...is an unincorporated territory of the United States which according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Insular Cases is “a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States.”
In other words, the U.S.Constitution does not follow the flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico
So, we have strict rules for a Republican to run for President, but anything zero does is ok? Is that what I’m reading from your post? Strict rules went out the window in 2008.
No one is saying that, what they are saying is Ted is not a Natural Born Citizen, and that term has a definition, unfortunately we will have to wait on a corrupt Court to tell us what the Constitution says in plain English.
In any case the two terms,"Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" had meaning to the Founders, they just didn't understand that complicated Old English so they left the true definition to be debated and defined by our betters.
> “In fact, the major authorities of the early United States absolutely contradict the claim - starting with President George Washington and the First Congress, which included close to half of the Signers of the Constitution.”
It’s obvious you haven’t read the Constitution or you have reading comprehension problems.
Here it is again marked for you:
“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.”
The marked phrase takes care of those that signed the Constitution or became President and were not natural born citizens.
The above blows away your criticism, in other words you are invalidated. No sympathy for you as all you had to do before stepping in your own stink was read before engaging whatever there is between your ears.
And don’t be so quick to kiss Mark’s *ss. he’s fallible and was not so long ago against an Article V movement. But Freepers including yours truly have been posting/advocating for Article V since Obamacare was passed and long before Mark got the Article V bug, and we had a Professor of Constitutional Law Randy Barnett back us up on it. Randy is more astute than Levin but both are fine. But we were ahead of the game before Mark came along to write his book.
Thanks for the correction. What did he release then?
Cruz us a citizen by birth, not naturalized. However, he may have a tough time showing he is a Natural Born Citizen:
You overlook the fact that they were declared in the Constitution to be eligible for the office of President, because they were residents of the United States at the signing of the Constitution.
But of course you knew that already, so one might as why you would make such an ill guided post.
The fact is he falls into none of those categories, so what is you point?
There are three categories of citizenship:
1. Natural Born Citizen
2. Citizen at Birth
3. Naturalized Citizen
Your law reference covers only number 2 above. Number 1 above is what is at issue as there is no argument that Cruz is a citizen by birth.
You left this part out.... and shall be declared "Natural Born Citizens" as defined in the Constitution as one of the requirements to be President of The United States.
Well of course you left that part out because you know none of the drivel in this post can make that argument a fact.
Hey, lets leave innocent drug lords out of this.
Nothing technical, about it, he is a Canadian Citizen, in Absolute Fact.
Yes he does, but he has his own set of prejudices just like the rest of us. He choose to ignore the plain fact that the Framers defined exactly what a Natural Born Citizen was and distinguished themselves as a separate category of Citizen, but declared themselves to be eligible to serve as President, by virtue of being Citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution.
Holy cow. There are some serious implications in that decision. I’ll have to spend some time on it.
Yeah, the modification date took me by surprise. I posted it on another Cruz thread earlier today.
Your categories one and two have been considered the same category since the late 19th century. Since the adoption of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment in 1868, no law passed by Congress and no court decision has ever separated natural born citizens from citizens of the United States at birth.
Two recent examples of court rulings on the issue:
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
Voeltz v Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
That's simply not true. Both Minor and Wong Kim Ark separated natural-born citizens from "citizen of the United States at birth." They both said the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizenship.
That's incorrect. See "7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally" and "7 FAM 1131.7 Citizenship Retention Requirements" in the Foreign Affairs manual of the U.S. Department of State.
I agree that there are only two classes of citizens: born and naturalized. There are, however, multiple paths to each class, most with separate and distinct requirements.
Can we find out what the code said there yesterday?
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.