Skip to comments.
Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship
Yahoo/AP ^
| June 10, 2014
| WILL WEISSERT
Posted on 06/11/2014 6:13:39 PM PDT by kingattax
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
To: SoConPubbie
So you admit it’s a question... Now what?
21
posted on
06/11/2014 7:16:48 PM PDT
by
HMS Surprise
(Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
To: DJ MacWoW
Not only is Ted Cruz 100% American and qualified to become President of these United States, he's more thoroughly Texan than any number of those fortunate to have been born here such as Willie Nelson, Matthew McConaughey, Wendy Davis, Bob Schieffer, Tommy Lee Jones and other despicable leftists who have repudiated Texas values. Likewise, the great Patriot Ted Nugent, though born a Yankee, has fully embraced the Conservatism that defines Texas!
Go Ted go! Both of 'em! Woo hoo! Take America back! God Bless Texas!
22
posted on
06/11/2014 7:17:55 PM PDT
by
re_nortex
(DP - that's what I like about Texas)
To: grobdriver
23
posted on
06/11/2014 7:19:52 PM PDT
by
FlingWingFlyer
(Obama's smidgens are coming home to roost.)
To: kingattax
At least Ted’s father wasn’t an America-hating, Kenyan communist.
24
posted on
06/11/2014 7:20:45 PM PDT
by
FlingWingFlyer
(Obama's smidgens are coming home to roost.)
To: DoodleDawg
Done to death indeed.
It ended in a zot for one of the 'Cruz is ineligible' trolls.
I'm ok with that.
/johnny
To: kingattax
Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency. Those born to an eligible US citizen outside of the US are citizens at birth. Go, Ted!
To: kingattax
27
posted on
06/11/2014 8:28:29 PM PDT
by
Nifster
To: okie01
"Giving up a foreign citizenship doesnt miraculously turn him into a NBC. You're right. It doesn't. Even if Cruz had left things as they were, he'd still be an NBC. "
We can argue about the definition of NBC all day but what is certain is the founders wrote the qualification to ensure 100% allegiance to the United States. That being agreed upon I think we can conclude that a person born on foreign soil to only one US citizen parent who later has to renounce his citizenship to that foreign country would in no way qualify as a person who is certain to have soul allegiance to the United States.
Even without a definition in the Constitution, logic and common sense tells us Ted Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen.
To: precisionshootist
That being agreed upon I think we can conclude that a person born on foreign soil to only one US citizen parent who later has to renounce his citizenship to that foreign country would in no way qualify as a person who is certain to have soul allegiance to the United States. Sure. We could conclude that.
But we would be wrong.
Under American citizenship law, Cruz was a citizen-at-birth. That Canada considered him a Canadian citizen is of no moment.
The citizenship laws of other nations have no relevance to America's citizenship laws. Nor should they. Cruz never had to "renounce" his Canadian citizenship because he has always been an American citizen. On the other hand, he could've formally accepted his Canadian citizenship, thereby renouncing his American citizenship.
But he didn't take that step.
Cruz was never "naturalized", therefore he is a citizen-at-birth; a natural-born citizen, if you wish, as American citizenship law recognizes only the two forms.
29
posted on
06/11/2014 8:57:13 PM PDT
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
To: precisionshootist
That being agreed upon I think we can conclude that a person born on foreign soil to only one US citizen parent who later has to renounce his citizenship to that foreign country would in no way qualify as a person who is certain to have soul allegiance to the United States. Sure. We could conclude that.
But we would be wrong.
Under American citizenship law, Cruz was a citizen-at-birth. That Canada considered him a Canadian citizen is of no consequence.
The citizenship laws of other nations have no relevance to America's citizenship laws. Nor should they. Cruz never had to "renounce" his Canadian citizenship because he has always been an American citizen. On the other hand, he could've formally accepted his Canadian citizenship, thereby renouncing his American citizenship.
But he didn't do that.
Cruz was never "naturalized", therefore he is a citizen-at-birth; a natural-born citizen, if you wish, as American citizenship law recognizes only the two forms.
30
posted on
06/11/2014 8:59:01 PM PDT
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
To: SoConPubbie
You said:”There is no constitutional requirement for a US Citizen to have 2 US Citizen parents at birth to be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’”
Your sentence makes no sense. The Constitutional requirement is that you have to BE a Natural Born Citizen. The framers all knew exactly what it meant, that’s why they used the term.
Just because people today ascribe their own meanings doesn’t change the fact that the framers knew exactly what they were doing.
We all used to know what “alone” and “is” meant until Bill Clinton came along. Now there is doubt, but the real meaning of the words hasn’t changed.
If you really want to know the truth about NBC read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2840767/posts
31
posted on
06/11/2014 9:19:37 PM PDT
by
faucetman
( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
To: faucetman
Your sentence makes no sense. The Constitutional requirement is that you have to BE a Natural Born Citizen. The framers all knew exactly what it meant, thats why they used the term.
No they did not.
They did not all agree on what it meant.
32
posted on
06/11/2014 9:59:03 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: faucetman
You said:There is no constitutional requirement for a US Citizen to have 2 US Citizen parents at birth to be a Natural Born Citizen
Your sentence makes no sense.
Only if you are being purposefully obtuse.
33
posted on
06/11/2014 10:01:29 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: faucetman
If you really want to know the truth about NBC read this:
I've read through the arguments the contend that it "Natural Born Citizen" requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth.
Why would I want to read through this again. Your "proof" always leads back to books/meanings outside of the US Constitution, US Law, and SCOTUS Rulings.
There is no legal definition provided by any of US Jurisprudence, only the hazy, murky proof of documents that have no legal jurisdiction in the United States today.
Constitutionally AND legally, you don't have a leg to stand on.
34
posted on
06/11/2014 10:04:47 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: precisionshootist; okie01
We can argue about the definition of NBC all day but what is certain is the founders wrote the qualification to ensure 100% allegiance to the United States. That being agreed upon I think we can conclude that a person born on foreign soil to only one US citizen parent who later has to renounce his citizenship to that foreign country would in no way qualify as a person who is certain to have soul allegiance to the United States.
Sorry, but your opinion does not trump the US Constitution, US Law, or SCOTUS rulings and none of those have any such definition. Not even close.
35
posted on
06/11/2014 10:06:06 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: HMS Surprise
So you admit its a question... Now what?
No, I do not.
Until either the US Constitution is amended, a new US Law is passed, or a new SCOTUS ruling is completed defining it in the fashion/meaning that you think it should be, Ted Cruz is eligible to be POTUS as he is a "Natural Born Citizen".
36
posted on
06/11/2014 10:08:42 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: ansel12
I guess one was out of luck for president if your dad died before you were born, or if your mom was raped by an unknown assailant, or lied about your mysterious, and long gone father.
Yes, but that makes too much sense for those invested in this idea since they are trying to get Obama with this silly approach and those supporting Rand Paul and looking for anything to hit Ted Cruz with.
37
posted on
06/11/2014 10:10:09 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
For what is clearly a constitutionalist website, there are certainly a lot of folks around here who could stand a refresher course on the document.
Especially when it comes to presidential eligibility and citizenship law.
38
posted on
06/11/2014 10:10:57 PM PDT
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
To: DJ MacWoW
Actually this subject has been discussed thoroughly on Obama threads. Obama didnt qualify. His father was not and never wanted to be a citizen. Cruz father became a citizen.
Actually, some of the "proof" these losers keep posting to support their position actually states that only the Father had to be a citizen.
39
posted on
06/11/2014 10:11:56 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: okie01
So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. Thats an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.
That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 Cruz was born in 1970 someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruzs mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.
So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that theres no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldnt have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldnt have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)
In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldnt be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain and couldve said about Obama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater Cruz is certainly not the hypothetical foreigner who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.
40
posted on
06/11/2014 10:12:41 PM PDT
by
ansel12
((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson