Can't say that here real.
Better Duck.
Posted on 01/03/2014 12:16:29 PM PST by SoConPubbie
Sen. Ted Cruz isn’t leaving any room for doubt. He’s reached out to his lawyers — and met with billionaire businessman Donald Trump — and is taking steps to renounce his citizenship with Canada.
The tea-party favorite said he only discovered he held dual American-Canadian citizenship after the Dallas Morning News reported it a few months ago. But he doesn’t want the issue to become an albatross — as it did for President Obama over his birth certificate when a host of sources, from politicos to Mr. Trump, questioned his true place of birth. So Mr. Cruz is taking a dramatic action.
“I have retained counsel that is preparing the paperwork to renounce the citizenship” with Canada, he said, The Daily Mail reported.
Mr. Cruz said he expects the process will wrap in 2014.
The Dallas Morning News reported in August that Mr. Cruz’s parents lived in Calgary when he was born, and they only moved to America when he was 4 years old. Mr. Cruz’s citizenship has taken on especial importance in recent months as talk about the next presidential election simmers, and the Texas senator is thought to be a possible GOP candidate.
Mr. Cruz said to the Dallas Morning News that he’d discussed his birth with Mr. Trump — who once launched his own investigation into Mr. Obama’s birth certificate — but “not in any significant respect.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
From the Dallas Morning News, Dec. 28, 2013.
Ted Cruz says he’s hired lawyers to renounce Canadian citizenship
Snip
When Cruz was born, his parents were living in the Canadian oil patch in Calgary.
His mother is a native-born American. His father, a Cuban émigré who later became
a naturalized American, was still a Cuban citizen.
Under U.S. law, a child born with even one American parent is automatically
entitled to citizenship, even if the birth takes place outside the country.
Canada, like the United States, also confers automatic citizenship to anyone
born on its soil, regardless of the parents’ nationalities.
That revelation by The News startled Cruz and his parents.
His mother, he said, had understood that it would have taken an affirmative
act to claim Canadian citizenship, and that’s what she’d told him as a child.
“There was no reason to retain counsel to analyze Canadian law, because it
wasn’t relevant to anything I was doing,” he said.
end snip
And he’s wealthy enough to be the answer to some problems
All the Democrats have to do to derail his presidential campaign is to get someone to pick up "The Apprentice" again.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
A word of advice. Steer clear of discussing this topic.
Actually the signers were specifically granted NBC status by the Constitution, that they created and signed.
Thirty five percent of New York residents are foreign born and they just elected an absolute known Marxist as Mayor.
Wht pretend we even have a Republic anymore? Ronald Reagan once said any Country that can't control their Borders is no Country at all. I agree. Illegals can now Practice Law in California, what could go wrong with that?
It does now, at least here, since Cruz has become the anointed one.
Few here remember how Lindsy Graham came to prominence, we loved him here when he was prosecuting Bill Clinton.
Dan, I can understand why you believe that, and for all I know, you’re right.
I haven’t adopted that theory myself. The whole Hawaii birth story stinks IMO. It’s my understanding the claim has involved two hospitals, not just one as his birth place.
The birth certificate, one not fudged still hasn’t been offered.
It’s also my understanding he had to forfeit his citizenship to attend the school in Asia. Did he ever get his citizenship back? Why are there fairly credible stories about him registering for school as a foreign national?
Failing him having to address any of this, I can’t really climb on board the theories that don’t involve some serious citizenship questions.
Can't say that here real.
Better Duck.
If a person is born on foreign soil to U. S. Citizen parents, I consider the person a natural born U. S. Citizen. If we’re talking a short vacation trip, or perhaps someone serving overseas in some capacity, I don’t think the kid should be denied the natural born status. I will say that if this service and absense from U. S. soil is extended, then it does become quite problematic for me.
In a child’s formative years, they must be on U. S. soil, soaking up a devotion to our nation. If they are living in France for an extended period of their life, how do they have more loyalty to the U. S. than France?
Obama clearly doesn’t have an ounce of loyalty to the United States. He loathes it, admittedly or not. He is the exact model of what we try to avoid with the ‘Natural Born’ clause. At least in my opinion he is.
The strange thing you have going on here is this. Even if Obama was born on U. S. Soil, folks couldn’t convince me that Maggie Thatcher wouldn’t have made us a better president than him, her having been born in England and him here. (if it’s ever proven he was)
Cruz was born in Canada to one parent whom was American and one parent who was Cuban. At the time of his birth , anyone born in Canada was a citizen regardless of parents place of birth. This law has since been repealed. If he was born recently in Canada, he would be considered an American or an Cuban by Canadian officials. All EU counties now confirm to this standard. Prior to 1985 all children of illegals were not considered U.S. citizens( native born. At that time they were allowed to “claim “ U.S. citizenship or Mexican citizenship. Of course at that time, it was estimated that only a few thousand children were born in this category and was not considered a major issue. In 2010 the policy for illegals was changed (quietly) and the children of illegals were declared automatic citizens by birth on American soil. The Constitutional definition for Natural born citizen requires that both parents be U.S. citizens at birth, but since Article 2 was not enforced for obama, Cruz running for President appears to have some validly .
How cool is that?
They had MoveOn, so we're moving on, I guess, so we can fight them? I dunno...it's kinda whacky, but what isn't in this thing called "America" these days?
Personally, I hope and pray Ted Cruz replaces Harry Reid as Majority leader and puts some Constitutionality back in the Senate and what comes out of it, but that's just me.
Yet, I didn't see a single Supreme Court case cited in support of your contention. Nor a single scrap of correspondence between the Founding Fathers describing precisely what they meant by the phrase. Nothing that would, in any way, disqualify Ted Cruz' candidacy.
Instead, you are basing the contention on your opinion...and the opinion of others who are irrelevant to the discussion An opinion that, oddly, nobody (with any expertise or authority) was prepared to voice when Obama announced his intention to seek the Presidency. Yet, the fact that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen was near-universal knowledge.
The fact is that we don't exactly know what was meant by the phrase -- beyond what it was traditionally assumed to mean. And to presume that the Founding Fathers would not have been bound to respect the Congress' subsequent definition of citizenship is, well, presumptuous.
Personally, I remain convinced that this "natural born" issue was introduced into the eligibility controversy by Obama's own people as a red herring, to distract from the birth certificate issue. It's a wild goose chase.
His opinion is helpful...but not decisive.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
You have it exactly backwards. The birth certificate was to distract from the 'natural born citizenship'.
JustiaGate: 'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations Disappear
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.