Originally Posted By mawnck >>U.S. Senator Ted Cruz vowed months ago to renounce his Canadian citizenship by the end of 2013. It's now 2014, and the Calgary-born Republican lawmaker is still a dual citizen. "I have retained counsel that is preparing the paperwork to renounce the citizenship," the junior Texas senator, who's eyeing a run for president in 2016, said in a recent interview with the Dallas Morning News. … That's confounding Canadian immigration lawyers. Renouncing Canadian citizenship, they say, is a simple, quick and straightforward process … "Unless there's a security issue that hasn't been disclosed, unless there's a mental health issue that hasn't been disclosed, there's no reason for anything other than a lickety-split process to occur," Richard Kurland, a Vancouver-based immigration attorney, said in an interview Friday.<< <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ted-cruz-still-canadian-as-immigration-lawyers-express-confusion-1.2483367">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/....2483367</a> I like this Richard Kurland guy. Mental health issue. Tee-hee. The whole article is worth a read.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Maybe Ted is hedging his bets. If the Senator thing doesn't work out, maybe he can try his hand as a right wing Canadian politician later.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What's interesting is how the whole birther crowd will inevitably NOT have a problem with Cruz running for president. Look, there's no question Cruz is a US Citizen. His mother was, so he was too, from birth. Canadian citizen too, but unquestionably a US citizen. But the thing is, that wasn't good enough for the birthers when it came to Obama. His mother was, without question, a US citizen as well, so no matter where he was born, he was too. But that WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH, according to the birthers. The Constitution doesn't say you have to be a US Citizen. It says you have to be born here (and that part they got right - it does say that.) So, they said, it didn't matter if Obama's mother was a US citizen. If he was born anywhere other than the 50 states, HE WASN'T ELIGIBLE to be president. Not eligible! A dirty usurper!!!!!! There's no question that Cruz was NOT born in the 50 states. He was born in Canada. Simple fact, which he admits. So, according to the birthers' logic, he shouldn't be eligible to be President. Something tells me, however, that they will NOT object to him running. It won't even be a thing for them. You won't hear Orly Taitz or any of the other crazies talking about him being ineligible according to the Constitution, which is crystal clear on the matter... Gee, I wonder why. The only possible wrinkle here is if he actually seems to be a credible candidate (by the standards of the GOP far-right base). Then - perhaps - one of his rivals might use it. That really WILL be interesting to watch, if Cruz can crack the pre-election polls at all and seems like a threat. I don't think Rand Paul would do it. Chris Christie's a little more likely (he's certainly petty enough), but still I think unlikely. Santorum? Now we're maybe talking. He's whiny enough, constantly-aggrieved enough, and as the second-place guy from last time, he may feel entitled to the nomination. If Cruz starts beating him, especially after the voting starts, might he (or his surrogates) start beating that drum? i.e. "Nothing against you personally, Ted, but I just revere the Constitution too much, and the rules couldn't be clearer..." That could be interesting. If none of the birthers NOR his GOP rivals so much as brings it up, it will be a). rank hypocrisy, b). a missed opportunity for some awesome political theatre!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Gee, I wonder why.<< Lemme see...lemme see.... Hmmm.... I can't figure it out. I'm staring at photos of Obama and Cruz, and nothing jumps out at me. Oh! There it is! Obama has big ears. Must be it. Only possible reason.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Dabob2, I think you need to fact-check your post a bit. Let me help: <<< Obama. His mother was, without question, a US citizen as well, so no matter where he was born, he was too. >>> Not quite. Contrary to what many think, not all children born to at least one US-citizen parent are US citizens at birth based on their parent(s) citizenship. In order for that to apply, the US citizen parent must meet certain residency requirements. This is to prevent an unending line of US citizens born elsewhere. For example let's say you moved to Argentina, married an Argentine woman, and you two had children there. They would be US citizens because of your citizenship and long-time US residency. But if your children lived out their lives in Argentina and had children of their own, their children would not automatically be US citizens even though one of their parents was, because that parent US citizen didn't meet the residency requirements. Otherwise, there would be a whole colony of US citizens down in Argentina that went on and expanded until the end of time just because of you, with none of them having any ties to the US and perhaps never even visiting here ever. This is the situation that some say applied to Obama's mother: at the time of his birth, his mother had been outside the US for too long in order for him to automatically get US citizenship because of his mother. Of course, this would be an issue only if he was born outside the US. But your blanket statement you made above is false. <<< The Constitution doesn't say you have to be a US Citizen. It says you have to be born here (and that part they got right - it does say that.) >>> That's wrong too. Article II, Section I of the Constitution says that the President must be a "natural born citizen" without further defining what that means. The common interpretation of that clause, and the one that has force of law until and unless a court changes it, is NOT that they have to be born in the US, but that they have to be a US citizen at birth (as opposed to being naturalized). That is, they either could be a) born in the US, b) born to at least one qualifying US citizen parent, or c) get US citizenship at birth through one of the more obscure methods, such as those involving US overseas territories. The GOP has no leg to stand on if someone wanted to claim that you have to have been born within the 50 United States at birth in order to qualify to be President, as their own 2008 nominee didn't meet that qualification (John McCain was born in Panama). There's still some room for a hissy fit, as the Panama Canal Zone was under US jurisdiction at the time, so someone *could* claim that McCain qualified while at the same time saying that Cruz doesn't, but that would work only if there was a "born in the US" requirement of some sort, which there is not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The Canal Zone was considered part of the US at the time McCain was born there. Your first paragraph on the "colony" goes to second and subsequent generations born elsewhere, which was obviously not the case with Obama's mother. The paragraph following doesn't fit either; she had lived by far the greater period of her life in the US at the time Obama was born; she didn't go to Indonesia till after he was born. And while technically, yes, not every child born to a US citizen will be a US citizen, nearly all will be - it takes a fairly rare circumstance (none of which fit Obama's mother) for that NOT to be true. And "natural born" can mean different things to different people. (And has the Supreme Court ever definitely ruled on this?) The birthers put the emphasis on "born," obviously. My point is that the birthers would apply the most stringent standard to Obama, but be a-ok with changing that standard entirely for Cruz.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And while technically, yes, not every child born to a US citizen will be a US citizen, nearly all will be - it takes a fairly rare circumstance (none of which fit Obama's mother) for that NOT to be true*** Well, not as rare as you may think. Here's the related requirements in full (granted it's wikipedia, so if it's wrong someone please correct the record)... "Birth abroad to one United States citizen[edit] A person born on or after November 14, 1986, is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[8] The person's parents were married at time of birth One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child's birth A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday. INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in "honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization." Additionally citizens, who spent time living abroad as the "dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person" in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted." I think something within that small print at the bottom might pertain to McCain as well (wasn't he born in Panama because Daddy was a general or something?). Interestingly, the parents have to be married. I didn't realize that. All in all, this satisfies a burning question I've always wondered about - it appears that Little X most certainly CAN be President of the United States when she grows up (I suppose she'll have to renounce her Japanese citizenship first though).
Originally Posted By Mr X Oops. Obama was born before 1986, wasn't he (or WAS he!!!!????)... For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[8] "The person's parents were married at the time of birth One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth; A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday. For persons born out of wedlock, the person is a U.S. citizen if all the following apply: the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person's birth and the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person's birth.[9] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out of wedlock)[8]"
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Even with the more stringent of those, most people born abroad to American mothers are still citizens. Yes, there are people who move abroad and stay there. But they're outnumbered by people who go abroad temporarily.
