I didn’t ask “should he get one?” I asked “could he get one?”
Cruz was obviously aware of the fact that he obtained US citizenship at birth. Neither of us actually knows for sure if birthright citizenship had been discussed in his classes at Harvard; however, if it were, it would no doubt have focused on US citizenship. Cruz and his family obviously were not concerned at all if he happened to also have Canadian citizenship. To the contrary, all they were concerned about is his status as a US citizen.
Granted. Anyway, there should be no requirement for someone to renounce another citizenship. That happens to be the current situation.
Also, I’ve posted on this board before that I disagree with the natural citizen citizen requirement for the presidency. It’s basically telling someone who’s been naturalized that they’re only kind of sort of a citizen.
This. The logic of dispensing with the “natural born citizen” requirement it that it’s repugnant to an egalitarian notion of citizenship. Right now, the US has a bunch of second-class citizens who are forever barred from the office of President. That doesn’t seem right to me. Surely in a democratic republic citizenship should be uniform for all?
So, if you decide to ditch the “natural born citizen” requirement, it makes no sense at all to introduce a different “no dual citizens” requirement. Again, what you would be saying there is that US citizens who also hold citizenship in another country are somehow lesser US citizens for that reason, and are not quite good enough to be President.
There is no reason for this. Lots of countries allow dual citizens to hold high public office - the US is currently one of them - and in not a few countries there are examples of dual citizens who actually do hold high, and even the highest, office. No harm appears to result. I’m not seeing the need for the American republic to bar dual citizens from the presidency. Is the republic so fragile that it will crumble in the face of a circumstance that other republics are completely unbothered by? What exactly is the problem here?
I’m going to pick a nit here and say that your definition doesn’t account for the word “natural.” If the text said “born citizen” then your definition of “a citizen at birth” would be solid. But the text says “natural born citizen.” Can any legislation redefine what is natural? Can Congress say that a cat is a dog, or that a tree is a fish?
I think Cruz, Obama, McCain, and Romney all are/were on solid legal ground, but I disagree with your assertion that it is so plainly obvious.
Missed the edit window: Unless someone wants to argue that the word “natural” modifies the word “born” and would thereby exclude anyone born by Cesarean section or even with the assistance of a doctor.
It is absurd to argue that the phrase “natural born citizen” has an obvious meaning. If it did, this thread would not exist. Given that, I think it is clearly within the powers of Congress to pass an interpretative act defining it. In fact, they have, the act conferring citizenship on children of citizens born outside the US is widely understood as such an act.
It seems to me that, leaving Chet Arthur out of it, the most dubious recent candidate was McCain, since it seems illogical to confer NBC status retroactively.
To me it is inconceivable that Cruz did not know he was a Canadian citizen, but since he lies about everything else, why not that. The renunciation was a political show not a legal thing anyway.
There is a meme out there about choosing citizenship at age 21. Has there ever been such a law? How would it be enforced? The government does not track dual citizens and if you don’t choose one, then what? Anyway, it is just something “out there” with no evidence, just like creationism.
The founders included the clause to limit the presidency to those born under U.S. control, but honestly only a strict constitutional originalist would argue that archaic notion should still apply in our modern society.
The closest I could find is 8 USC § 1401(f)
I don’t know how you would go about proving that a foundling was under age 5 or reached age 21. Maybe this got twisted somehow?
This meme was repeated to me by a U.S. Consular Official (though I think he said 18, not 21). I assumed it was meaningful for many years until I finally understood it was just some ignorance, neither U.S. nor Thailand prohibiting dual citizenship.
U.S. citizenship is not an unmixed blessing, of course(*), although the potential benefits may outweigh costs. I do wonder if a U.S. citizen by birth but born abroad who has never applied for a U.S. passport and doesn’t want one needs to file the Renunciation of Citizenship form (which has a large fee AND may incur a huge tax bill).
(* - I wonder how many are aware that people all over the world are now asked if they are a “U.S. person” whenever they open a financial account. They’re not asked about Russia, Daesh, North Korea, U.K. or Nigeria, just specifically if they are a “U.S. person.”)
(** - “person” rather than “citizen” since green-card holders etc. also have the privilege of paying U.S. taxes.)
Doubtful, at least in federal court. There’s no actual case or controversy (yet).
And My Jr Senator claims to be a strict constitutional originalist.
Most of the time…
You mean like Cruz?
A doctor can examine a child and make a reasonable estimate as to the child’s age. Vets do this all the time with cats and dogs. And notice that 8 USC § 1401(f) relies on knowing when the child is under age 5 AND knowing when the person is over 21. If you know the first, that gives you a really big clue in figuring out the second.
If the kid is really 4 1/2, it might be doubtful. The law is there, however, mostly for infants: the proverbially “left on the orphanage step” foundlings too young to have any memory of who they are or who their parents are. You need an upper limit on such cases–five seems to have been chosen pretty much arbitrarily.
Cruz was born in Canada to two naturalized Canadian citizens. They resided in Canada, voted in Canadian elections, considered themselves Canadian. He has a valid Canadian birth certificate. If he was running for office in Canada, there would simply be no question about it – He was a natural born citizen of Canada, by any possible definition of “natural born citizen.”
Leaving aside the truth of your assertions, I’m pretty sure that this is meaningless in Canada. There is no requirement that Canadians be born in Canada or natural-born Canadians to serve in the government. Case in point, our queen, who isn’t even a citizen; plenty of MPs, born elsewhere. There was some kerfuffle over Thomas Mulcair, a potential PM in the last election who held dual citizenship, but I think it was minor and political rather than legal.
—Dr. Drake, natural-born American (jus soli & jus sanguinis) & natural-born Canadian (jus sanguinis).
For what it’s worth, I was also told growing up that I would have to choose citizenship when I turned 18. Not that anyone ever presented me with an opportunity to do so.
Can you provide a cite for them being naturalised? But even if they were naturalised Canadians, that’s not really relevant. The only possible issue is whether his mother renounced her US citizenship before Ted was born.
But isn’t that what declaratory judgments are for? To have a declaration of the law on a real issue, without necessarily having to seek any other relief? Or are bare declarations not allowed in federal courts?
They are, but you need to have two or more parties in conflict. If you just have one party then it’s an advisory opinion, which federal courts won’t do. I guess he could get one in state court, but obviously it wouldn’t bind other states.
If they were naturalized Canadian citizens before 1980s they would have automatically lost their US citizenships. This came up when my daughter applied for a US passport. She became a naturalized Canadian in 1985 when she was 19. Under Canadian law she could apply when she was over 18 and under the US law applicable at the time, anyone over the age of 21 who swore allegiance to a foreign country lost US citizenship. Later that year, the law was changed to apply to anyone over 18, and had she naturalized later in the year, she would have lost US citizenship. So when she applied for a US passport, she was asked on what date she had sworn the Canadian oath. She answered him and asked why and got the above explanation.
I know a woman who has two children born in Canada of an American father. They were never registered as US citizens and have never filed any US tax returns. Theoretically, they could be in trouble but in practice who will ever know?