“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump said when asked about the topic. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”
Trump added: “I’d hate to see something like that get in his way. But a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport.”
All this seems perfectly valid! Democrats have already threatened to challenge Cruz’s bonafides, and, despite what people like Levin says (his usual defenders), natural born citizen has not been clearly defined.
.
You and Trump both are wetting your pants over Cruz now.
Its wonderful.
Trump is bound to know that courts would expedite a case like this.
Better to air it now then later. The definitions are not straightforward. My reading is that it depends on his mother’s status. In 1970 if she applied for Canadian citizenship she was considered to have renounced her American citizenship. Pretty hard to prove one way or the other 40-45 years after the fact unless she had to reapply when they moved back to USA.
“An act of March 2, 1907, also known as the Expatriation Act, changed all this. Congress mandated that “any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband.” Upon marriage, regardless of where the couple resided, the woman’s legal identity morphed into her husband’s.
An American woman who married a non-U.S. citizen after September 22, 1922, would no longer lose her citizenship if her husband was eligible to become a citizen. The Cable Act was great news for couples marrying after 1922.
The act of July 2, 1940, provided that all women who
had lost citizenship by marriage could repatriate regardless of their marital status. They only had to take an oath of allegiance-no declaration of intention was required. But they still had to show that they had resided continuously in the United States since the date of the marriage.’
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2014/spring/citizenship.pdf
Current Law on Loss of U.S. Nationality
Loss of nationality, also known as expatriation, means the loss of citizenship status properly acquired, whether by birth in the United States, through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parents, or by naturalization. As a result of several constitutional decisions, §349(a) of the current Immigration and Nationality Act (”INA”) provides that U.S. nationality is lost only when the U.S. citizen does one of the specified acts described in INA §349, voluntarily and with the intent to give up that nationality. If any one of these requirements is lacking, nationality is not lost.
Acts not specified in INA §349 do not result in expatriation. For example, acquisition of foreign nationality at birth will not result in expatriation. However, two expatriating acts contained in INA §349 are relevant to the issue of dual nationality. They are:
obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon the citizen’s own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; and
taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof after having attained the age of eighteen years. (This is the action taken by Cruz’s mother before his birth)
http://www.americanlaw.com/dualcit.html