Your point is undoubtedly true, right up to 1922 when US coverture laws were adopted via the Cable Act that ensured that ALL children born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father was born as a U.S. natural born Citizen to U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world.
I suspect Sen Cruz is going to try and maintain that his father, having received permanent residency status prior to leaving US jurisdiction for over six years, retained this status even after becoming a Canadian citizen.
Precisely so, as Sen Cruz and Neal Katyal only too well know because as it turns Neal Katyal was the Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record in the RUBEN FLORES-VILLAR case before the SCOTUS. Surprise! Surprise!
Thank you, Mr X.
If Sen. Cruz believes himself to be eligible to stand for the presidency of the United States, he must also believe, as does Obama, the power to set the qualifications for the President and Vice-President of the United States lies not where the founders and framers of the US Const. had rightfully placed it, i.e., in the hands of We the People, but in the plenary hands of the state, i.e., Congress, i.e., positive law: Title 8 USC §1401 (g).
No, it's quite normal. The INA defines the term “naturalization” more narrowly as a statutory matter than does the Court when construing the term as a constitutional matter. This why the INA did not require Sen Cruz to go through any further naturalization procedures at some later time.
Constitutionally speaking, Sen Cruz is a statutory, naturalized Citizen of the United States at birth. He is not, and cannot be, considered an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, which acquires US citizenship by nature, as a natural political right and not by statute.
Actually, as to Sen Cruz's naturalization, I am pretty sure that has happened, but not without some twists and turns. Full disclosure: I am just speculating here, but I start off with the absolute knowledge Canadian Immigration officials would not have allowed him to renounce his Canadian citizenship if his US naturalization had not been a fait accompli. So the big question is; why did it take him so long to renounce his Canadian citizenship; almost a year; I believe? I suspect it was because his FS-240 had not, in fact, been filled out at birth. This is not a crucial as some make it out to be, at least in my humble opinion, because there is no actual time limit beyond which you can't assemble your facts and simply fill it out 35 years after the fact, which is what I think Sen Cruz had to do and why it took him so long to get done.
Actually, the part I found most hilarious was when Clement and Katyal suggested that John Jay could not have understood "natural born Citizen" to mean a person born within the jurisdiction of two citizen-parents, because that would have disqualified his own children, who were all born overseas while Jay was serving as US Ambassador to France. These guys were so inept, or just plain lazy, or perhaps both, they failed to do about 1O minutes worth of internet research which would have told them Jay's eldest was born in New York of two citizen-parent before Jay's "hint" to G. Washington was even written, and that his youngest son was also born in this country of two-citizen parents. But it gets funner, or pathetic, depending on your point of view, when these two "lawyers" seem completely unaware of Blackstone's well known common law birthright exemptions for ambassadors on foreign assignment. So even Jay's four daughters born overseas during Jay's ambassadorship, theoretically, were Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizens as well.
I just can't stand by and allow someone, anyone, to steal other people's hopes and dreams for a better country.
Thanks, BR, for the plug. I can't stand Tea Party imposters...and believe me, they seem to be crawling out of the woodwork these days...from scamming well-meaning and deeply concerned Tea Party supporters out of the hopes and dream for a better future. All Tea Party supporters need do is keep an eye peeled on a few good websites such as BR, and a few kind-of-off-the-wall ones like the material JB Williams has consistently put out, one of which has just been plagiarized, big time, over at Freedom OutPost (I won't give their URL, they don't deserve it). But it was JB's article back in June 8, 2011 that lists the many attempts Congress has tried to do away with the nbC requirement altogether . It's entitled:
"EVIDENCE BROADENS OBAMA NATURAL BORN CONSPIRACY"
Thanks again
Oh, I see; bringing this issue before Congress to seek the approval of the People's representatives was just a charade then. I am beginning to think the clown in the rodeo show wasn't that far off.
This kind of arrogance should shock the conscience of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, but don't hold your breath.
ex animo
davidfarrar
The two birth announcements in the Hawaiian newspapers were not private, third-party notices, privately paid for by the proud parents or grandparents of their first born son or grandson. Those birth notices were printed in a difference sections of each newspaper.
These were 'public service" notices, and, as such, were taken directly from HDOH. Sadly, they are not independent, corroborative evidence of Obama's birth.
ex animo
davidfarrar
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
davidfarrar 
Company