Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship
Associated Press ^ | Jun 10, 2014 8:16 PM EDT | Will Weissert

Posted on 06/10/2014 7:11:53 PM PDT by Olog-hai

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-269 next last
To: sten
the US didn’t allow dual citizenship prior to the late 60s and not completely until 1980.

To be precise, the USA didn't allow people to practice dual citizenship as adults prior to the late sixties.

Do you understand the difference?

And the USA cannot block -- nor has ever tried to block -- another nation from exercising their own citizenship laws. If Canadian law called for Cruz to gain Canadian citizenship, neither Cruz nor the USA could keep them from so doing.

For that reason, many Americans who were born overseas after WW II were advised not to return to the country of their birth because they might be eligible for the draft -- as the country of their birth considered them citizens under their laws. This, despite their being full-fledged American citizens under our laws (and fully eligible to run for the Presidency, by the way).

81 posted on 06/11/2014 7:23:42 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: SADMILLIE

Hey, Millie, the CATO Institute article proving Cruz is eligible to run has been posted to you before. I know because I’ve done it myself. Have you even bothered to read it? Do you want it again? Or are you just determined to continue in your mistaken belief?


82 posted on 06/11/2014 7:32:04 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: caww

That is one good-looking family.


83 posted on 06/11/2014 7:32:25 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: sten; SADMILLIE

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3060736/posts


84 posted on 06/11/2014 7:33:12 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: okie01

born in another country... most likely to a foreign mother... and eligible as a ‘natural born citizen’?

whatever.

you’re not interesting in logic or law, just propaganda to try and boost your guy.


85 posted on 06/11/2014 8:06:23 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

you’re quoting a canadian and personal friend of TCruz??

LOL

obvious conflict of interest is obvious


86 posted on 06/11/2014 8:07:59 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
8 USC CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I: Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization

The above, is a link to the US Code that covers Senator Cruz's Citizenship.

§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;


The 14th Amendment states -
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.


A Citizen is either born or naturalized.

Is everyone who is a Citizen from the time of their birth, a "born Citizen"? Notice the title of Part I above. It is very clear, it says Part I covers who shall be Nationals at birth, and whom shall be Citizens via Collective Naturalization. If you look at every section under Part I you will notice that every section covers a situation at birth, so the "Collective Naturalization" must be covering an "at birth" situation. It is clearly stating that naturalization can occur automatically at birth. And as stated in the 14th Amendment, one is either 'born' or 'naturalized', not both, so it's clear that one can be a 'naturalized' Citizen at birth, and not a 'born' Citizen.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution gives the power to Congress to
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Naturalization is not a process to become a Citizen later in life, it means that Congress has passed a law that grants Citizenship to an individual.

Regarding dual citizenship, contrary to what many here seem to believe, being a dual citizen does not mean one can not be a natural born US citizen. But, to be a natural born Citizen one must not be a naturalized Citizen, and ALL naturalized Citizens must hold some other citizenship at the time they are naturalized (Ted Cruz was Canadian) because Congress can not naturalize someone who is already a US citizen. This is why the 14th Amendment, and clause A of Title 8 Section 1401 does not apply to natural born Citizens, the Congress (or even the 14 amendment) can not naturalize persons who are already natural born US citizens.

In §1401 Congress has passed a law that granted Ted Cruz US citizenship, even though he was born in Canada. Ted Cruz was "Collectively Naturalized", along with anyone else in the same class, a US citizen at the time of his birth. Ted Cruz is a naturalized US citizen, and therefore can not be a natural born US citizen.
87 posted on 06/11/2014 8:11:07 AM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten; Jim Robinson
"you’re quoting a canadian and personal friend of TCruz??

LOL

obvious conflict of interest is obvious"

I'm quoting an article posted by the owner of the forum to rebut this "Cruz is ineligible" nonsense. I guess you should take it up with him. *shrug*

88 posted on 06/11/2014 8:11:50 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: sten
born in another country... most likely to a foreign mother... and eligible as a ‘natural born citizen’?

You presume too much.

Most of the cases involved were children born to American servicemen and their wives, when they were stationed in a jus soli European country or Korea post-war (the problem didn't exist in Occupied Japan).

You would deny citizenship to such children?

89 posted on 06/11/2014 8:26:05 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: okie01

you’re confusing citizenship with being a natural born citizen

‘natural born citizen’ is a subset of ‘US citizen’

btw, you mentioned WW2. very few wives went overseas with their husbands in WW2. there were far more incidents of illegitimate kids being born to US servicemen and women of whatever country they were in.


90 posted on 06/11/2014 8:30:39 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: sten

Stop complicating things—a wonderful candidate can simply renounce his/her foreign citizenship to be eligible.

It’s the final step one takes to establish eligibility! /s


91 posted on 06/11/2014 8:41:16 AM PDT by TauntedTiger (Keep away from the fence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TauntedTiger

it would seem


92 posted on 06/11/2014 8:46:23 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: sten
you’re confusing citizenship with being a natural born citizen

‘natural born citizen’ is a subset of ‘US citizen’

No, there is no such distinction. It doesn't exist. Again, let me allow you to read the pertinent portion of the sentence that devastates your attempt to twist this idea to your liking:

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization.

That line states crystal clear that the Constitution recognizes only if a person is born with citizenship or is naturalized as a citizen after birth.

There is no 'subset' to discuss. There is no 'subset' that exists. If you are a citizen at birth you are a citizen at birth. And if you are a citizen at birth, you are a 'natural born citizen'.

Period. End of story. Don't like it? Take it up with the Supreme Court. They are the ones who wrote it.

This was a ridiculous argument when people tried it against Obama and it was a ridiculous argument when people tried it against Chester Arthur and it was a ridiculous argument when people tried it against Charles Curtis and it remains a ridiculous argument against Ted Cruz. The reason why it is ridiculous is that being born a citizen makes you a natural born citizen. The idea that there is a magic third form of citizenship (or the idea that it is a specific 'subset' of someone born a citizen) is not based on anything found in the laws or jurisprudence of the United States.

93 posted on 06/11/2014 9:12:27 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com - Eclipse, the sequel to Bright Horizons is out! Get it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: sten
It's really scary what is happening.

Someone once asked me, after overhearing me call myself a 'conservative', what exactly were 'conservatives' trying to conserve?

I started out by asking him rhetorically - "What do you consider the 'United States' to be?". Did he think it was the geographical area? Was it the people that made up it's Citizenry? What is it exactly that made the United States, "The United States"?

I then explained to him that to 'conservatives' it was the Constitution, the blueprint handed down by the founders, that made up the core of what is "The United States of America", and that is what I'm trying to conserve. The founders were the first, and possibly only, true patriots. They dreamed of something incredible, and they gave us an equally incredible document to try to preserve it.

And now, people who claim to be 'conservative' simply want to ignore parts of the incredible document, the heart of what is America, simply because it is inconvenient. Who's to choose what other parts are to be ignored? Obama wants to ignore the whole thing - if we start doing the same, how are we to stop him?

Would Ted Cruz make an excellent President? YES - I believe he would be the next Reagan. But if we choose to ignore the Constitution in ANY situation, what justification do we have when the Democrats start to confiscate legal guns? How about when they start forcing churches to perform gay marriages, or be shut down for discrimination?

This is a slippery slope, and I'm terrified because of the number of 'conservatives' who seem to want to put a garden hose on it, and slide down head first!
94 posted on 06/11/2014 9:13:23 AM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

This is like leaving the Toledo Mudhens to play for the NY Yankees. A no brainer.


95 posted on 06/11/2014 9:14:30 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue (I have no home. I'm the wind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

I mean really, if I’m a US citizen and I’m pregnant and I travel to Mexico on vacation and happen to give birth....you telling me that my child is a Mexican and not an American citizen???

That’s ludicrous. I hope Ted has some legs.....

(and I didn’t mean you as in YOU)


96 posted on 06/11/2014 9:20:46 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue (I have no home. I'm the wind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
That line states crystal clear that the Constitution recognizes only if a person is born with citizenship or is naturalized as a citizen after birth.

That is incorrect. Please see post #87

The Congress has been given, by the Constitution, the power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

If they choose (and they have) for that naturalization to occur automatically at birth, that is their prerogative.


97 posted on 06/11/2014 9:23:44 AM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
‘natural born citizen’ is a subset of ‘US citizen’

No, there is no such distinction. It doesn't exist.

if there is no distinction... then why did the founders bother to make the requirement in A2S1?

their point was to insure a foreign king could not assume the office. this is why the person had to be natural born so that there was no foreign allegiance, at least by birth.

using your 'logic', any anchor baby could be POTUS. william and kate could fly to NYC, have a kid, fly back and that kid would be a natural born US citizen as well as the next king of england. the EXACT situation the founders were looking to avoid.

as for the supreme court, they've discussed it four times. each time recognizing both parents and on the soil as the requirement.

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

but hey, you keep ignoring the obvious and keep going on about how 'your guy' is special and is eligible, completely ignoring the Constitution

98 posted on 06/11/2014 9:30:23 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: sten
btw, you mentioned WW2. very few wives went overseas with their husbands in WW2

I said POST-war.

99 posted on 06/11/2014 9:33:25 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue
I mean really, if I’m a US citizen and I’m pregnant and I travel to Mexico on vacation and happen to give birth....you telling me that my child is a Mexican and not an American citizen???

Of course not, your child is a naturalized US citizen according to 8 USC CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I: Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
Via, clause 'c', 'd', or 'g' - depending on the status of the other parent.
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;


Your child would be a naturalized (by and act of Congress) citizen of the US from the moment of their birth, but they are not a 'natural born' US citizen, because their Citizenship is based on a law written by Congress.
100 posted on 06/11/2014 9:34:09 AM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-269 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson