Main Menu

Where’s the Consular Report of Birth Abroad?

imageThe Ted Cruz conspiracy theories heat up, while the constitutional argument simmers, stirred by Donald Trump. My Google alerts feed a steady stream of “natural born citizen” stories about Ted Cruz. Now Cruz has released his mother’s birth certificate. Why would he do that?

His mother was uncontroversially born a US citizen. Previously Cruz released his own birth certificate, showing he was born in Canada. Why is Cruz releasing documents that don’t prove his own citizenship? This all seems like misdirection.  It seems more than a little odd (and more than a little suspicious), that the one document Cruz needs to end one of the questions about his presidential eligibility,the Consular Report of Birth Abroad, is the one document he hasn’t released.

The waters are muddied further by the revelation that Cruz’ parents were on a Canadian voter roll in 1974, when only Canadian citizens can vote. This raises questions whether Cruz (born in 1970), was actually born to two Canadian citizens rather one US Citizen and one Cuban, if his mother had renounced her US citizenship to become Canadian prior to the Senator’s birth. Update: It appears that Cruz’ mother was not in Canada long enough to become a Canadian citizen before the Senator was born.

From where I sit, it seems unlikely that Ted Cruz is not a US citizen at birth, and that even if his mother did become a Canadian citizen that she renounced her US citizenship (no matter what the oath says). But the absence of the CRBA suggests to me that Cruz doesn’t have one. That’s a messy place to be when your citizenship is questioned.

Prior to the 2008 election, Barack Obama released his birth certificate, proving his eligibility to be president of the United States. Now it’s Ted Cruz’ turn. Where’s the Consular Report of Birth Abroad?

, ,

83 Responses to Where’s the Consular Report of Birth Abroad?

  1. avatar
    Reality Check January 10, 2016 at 8:27 am #

    I think I will start stamping dollar bills with a “Where’s Cruz’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad” stamp. That plan worked so well for Mike Volin! You ought to lock up that domain Doc. wherescruzsconsularreportofbrithabroad.com sounds kind of catchy to me.

  2. avatar
    Smirk 4 Food January 10, 2016 at 11:18 am #

    Reality Check:
    You ought to lock up that domain Doc. wherescruzsconsularreportofbrithabroad.com sounds kind of catchy to me.

    Grab iscruzacanuck.com as well…

  3. avatar
    y_p_w January 10, 2016 at 11:41 am #

    Well, there is the chance that he doesn’t have one. Remember that back in the 70s it was pretty easy to cross the US/Canada border with simple documents. Adults often just showed a driver license. Today minors can get across with a US or Canadian birth certificate. Back then it might have even been possible for a child to cross with no documentation at all.

    Flying still requires a passport though. Not sure what the elder Cruz would have used if he flew into Canada, as Cuba might not have renewed his as an exile. Maybe he had a Permit to Reenter the United States, which is a book similar to a US passport.

    And as the US Embassy Ottawa website indicates, a CRBA isn’t strictly necessary. One can apply for a US passport on secondary evidence of US citizenship. The list of documentation they want looks similar to the recommended documents for a CRBA, but I understand that they aren’t as strict as those adjudicating a CRBA application.

  4. avatar
    john January 10, 2016 at 12:23 pm #

    Le’s let the Obots work for us. I would love to see Trump become the nominee. Any birther stuff that slows down Cruz is fine with me. I just want Trump to become the nominee so he steamroll Hillary Clinton.

  5. avatar
    CRJ January 10, 2016 at 12:34 pm #

    @Doc [ This raises questions whether Cruz (born in 1970), was actually born to two Canadian citizens rather one US Citizen and one Cuban, if his mother had renounced her US citizenship to become Canadian prior to the Senator’s birth.]

    NICE!

    Interestingly enough, this is just another layer of the onion Anti Birthers are pushing to mitigate first generation Citizens into the Office of President.

    FYI
    Immigration attorney Joshua Goldstein told Breitbart News that [Ted Cruz would still be a natural-born citizen, and eligible for the presidency, even if his mother had taken Canadian citizenship, whether before or after his birth.
    “She could vote in Canada, and it wouldn’t affect her U.S. citizenship,” he added.]

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/

    NOW, if you do not agree with that Anti Birthers are divided.

    Bizarre for Cruz to unfold his mother’s birth certificate. As it’s anyone’s right to DISAVOW a Nation and most have naturalization processes, we do not look to what she was at the TIME of her Birth, but what Nation she was representing in citizenship at the time of Cruz’s birth.

    This seems the slippery slope you guys are representing in stating.. A person eligible as a natural born Citizen with a foreign birth and 2 foreign Citizens for parents at the TIME of birth.

    It does go to show just how diluted they have taken the understanding of [ natural born Citizen] out of the American Ball Field and are in this radical ideology perverting both intent, motive, incentive of Independence and Sovereignty [ born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] perpetuates.

    It is all who come here’s responsibility to conform , and perpetuate the Standards of this New Nation of the United States of America.

    Of course those who want to leave have a choice, but to perpetuate the choices of traitors who for political convenience want to be President is not only irresponsible it is resoundingly dangerous in our National Security.

    Trust is decidely compromised

    Cruz like Obama will say ANYTHING to get that Office.

    Of course you know I won’t.

  6. avatar
    bob January 10, 2016 at 12:36 pm #

    Being on a voter-registration roll is not the same as voting in an election. There are articles explaining that census data was likely collected, but no one was asked for proof of Canadian citizenship.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2016 at 12:40 pm #

    I flew into Toronto around 1990 without a passport.

    y_p_w: Flying still requires a passport though.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm #

    Thanks for that correction.

    bob: Being on a voter-registration roll is not the same as voting in an election.

  9. avatar
    CRJ January 10, 2016 at 12:46 pm #

    Of course you know Passports to fly into domestic States of the Union are very quickly emerging.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/states-need-passports-to-fly-domestic_5602ccc1e4b08820d91b0e47

    More recent Dec 29, 2015 Article
    http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/28/technology/passport-drivers-license-airplane/

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2016 at 12:46 pm #

    I’m missing the “slope part.” The position I am taking is the one taken by the First Congress in 1790. That seems perfectly flat to me.

    CRJ: This seems the slippery slope you guys are representing in stating..

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2016 at 12:54 pm #

    Why do you hate America?

    john: I just want Trump to become the nominee

  12. avatar
    Bob January 10, 2016 at 12:56 pm #

    McConnell not lifting a finger to help Ted:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/265374-mcconnell-senate-wont-intervene-in-cruz-eligibility#

  13. avatar
    CRJ January 10, 2016 at 12:57 pm #

    @Doc [ I’m missing the “slope part.”]

    Seems the Constitution wasn’t Amended with 1790 Act, but the 1790 Act was Amended by 1795 Act specifically taking out [ natural born Citizen] and replacing it with [Citizen] almost as if the political wind shifted and a mistake was recognized by many serving in the relative PROXIMITOUS period of TIME.

    Constitutional Citizen Reporter Scholar Geraldo Rivera schools Hannity on 1795
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=qZZJS_I8ARI

  14. avatar
    bob January 10, 2016 at 1:03 pm #

    CRJ:
    Interestingly enough, this is just another layer of the onion Anti Birthers are pushing to mitigate first generation Citizens into the Office of President.

    Non-naturalized first-generation U.S. citizens have always been natural-born citizens.

    A person eligible as a natural born Citizen with a foreign birth and 2 foreign Citizens for parents at the TIME of birth.

    A person born under those conditions would not a U.S. citizen at birth, and therefore not a natural-born citizen.

    It does go to show just how diluted they have taken the understanding of [ natural born Citizen] out of the American Ball Field and are in this radical ideology perverting both intent, motive, incentive of Independence and Sovereignty[ born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] perpetuates.

    Except no one is advocating what Judy thinks others are advocating.

  15. avatar
    bob January 10, 2016 at 1:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I flew into Toronto around 1990 without a passport.

    Passportless travel between the United States and Canada/Mexico/Caribbean ended after 9/11.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

    Another headline: “GOP implodes as Ted Cruz might have to drop out of the Republican Primary” at BlastingNews.

    http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/01/gop-implodes-as-ted-cruz-might-have-to-drop-out-of-the-republican-primary-00723135.html

  17. avatar
    CRJ January 10, 2016 at 1:18 pm #

    @Bob [Except no one is advocating what Judy thinks others are advocating.]

    No one? Bob.. Read.

    Joshua Goldstein

    Cruz born in Canada out of U.S. Jurisdiction
    Mother
    [if his mother had taken Canadian citizenship, whether before or after his birth.] Out of U.S. Jurisdiction
    Father Canadian naturalized Out of U.S. Jurisdiction

  18. avatar
    bob January 10, 2016 at 1:40 pm #

    CRJ:
    @Bob [Except no one is advocating what Judy thinks others are advocating.]

    No one? Bob.. Read.

    Judy shows his continued inability to read, as Goldstein is merely saying there’s no evidence that Cruz’s mother ever lost her U.S. citizenship. Cruz’s birth to a U.S. citizen (who meets certain requirements) makes Cruz a citizen at birth, and therefore a natural-born citizen.

  19. avatar
    gorefan January 10, 2016 at 2:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That seems perfectly flat to me.

    It may be flat but is it level?

    Cruz’s mom’s naturalization would have been governed by the 1947 Citizenship Act. If she moved to Canada in 1967, she may not have met the residence requirement to become a Canadian citizen before his birth in 1970.

  20. avatar
    gorefan January 10, 2016 at 2:43 pm #

    Interesting opinion piece on the meaning of natural born citizen and Cruz.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-president-20160110-story.html

  21. avatar
    J.D. Reed January 10, 2016 at 2:52 pm #

    Seems logical that if Cruz’s mother was not a Canadian citizen when he was born that he would have attained birthright U.S. Citizenship through her. And per Perkins v. Elg a parent cannot forfeit the U.S. Citizenship of a minor child.
    Not that the Texas senator’s situation doesn’t raise some interesting questions. One is burden of proof — is it up to Cruz to prove his mother was a U.S. Citizen at his birth? Or is it up to anyone who would seek to keep Cruz off the ballot to prove she wasn’t?
    Pursuant to that, what are the ironclad facts concerning the acquisition of Canadian citizenship? I have read that this takes a five-year residency, so if the Cruzes moved to Canada in 1967, Mrs. Cruz would still be well short of meeting this requirement upon the birth of little Ted in December 1970. Or so it seems to me.

  22. avatar
    CRJ January 10, 2016 at 3:22 pm #

    According to OPEN SOURCE just under $39,000,000 for #TedCruz2016
    https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033085

    Man! I just Tweeted
    1- https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/686253780828995584

    2 – @heidiscruz SCOTUS Case might save #Cruz2016 #Birther PR https://t.co/Ai9rIWtrOH Watch vid
    https://t.co/fkIlQGeYHr https://t.co/L6JIosQU9M

    Can you even imagine having to pull out of a 39M dollar deal because you weren’t qualified, or worse the [ natural born Citizen ] qualification clause was undefined by the U.S.A.’s Highest Court?

    Now, let’s just say you are Ted Cruz and a Reporter asks you:

    ” Senator Cruz, we understand that the Principle of [ natural born Citizen ] was in the U.S. Supreme Court in Case 14-9396 Judy v. Obama, and that he is also a Presidential Candidate running in the Democratic Party, who lacked roughly the contribution equal to what is able to be contributed by a Couple ($5,400) in Order to have that Principle considered by the Court.

    Do you find it amazing now your Campaign has been dissolved due to Trump Questioning Publically your Campaign on the Principle, that out of Thirty Nine Million Dollars, you and your wife or any supporters of you, wouldn’t have contribute that $5,400 amount to his Campaign to save your own, and have written a Amicus Curiae he requested from you personally?

    To save your Campaign worth 39 Million will you ask the U.S. Senate of which you are a member now, for a Non Binding Resolution that the U.S. Supreme Court hear 14-9396 based on the inproprietous clerical error that Denied Mr. Judy’s Motion for Forma Pauperis as well it being a matter of extreme National Importance in U.S. Elections?”

  23. avatar
    Dave B. January 10, 2016 at 3:22 pm #

    I did that in ’96. Had no trouble getting there, but somebody– I seem to recall it was a Canadian– was a little constipated over it when I was returning.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I flew into Toronto around 1990 without a passport.

  24. avatar
    y_p_w January 10, 2016 at 3:44 pm #

    bob: Passportless travel between the United States and Canada/Mexico/Caribbean ended after 9/11.

    I thought that was for surface travel. Certainly at this time a US citizen entering Canada would need to have a US passport book. For surface travel there are a variety of documents that will work including a passport card, trusted traveler card, or enhanced driver license/ID.

    As for Rafael B. Cruz, I don’t know what the heck he would have had. He was a political asylee, so it would be unlikely that Cuba would have renewed his passport. INS used to issue the Permit to Reenter the United States as well as refugee travel documents. These days it looks like USCIS documents say “Travel Document” on the cover. Certainly if he was a US permanent resident, he would have wanted to have a Permit to Reenter the United States, as not returning after a year abroad might have led INS to assume that he gave up his permanent resident status. Getting one and renewing it would maintain the permanent residence status. It would also be a way to get arrival/departure stamps and visas.

  25. avatar
    Joey January 10, 2016 at 4:07 pm #

    CRJ:
    @Doc [ I’m missing the “slope part.”]

    Seems the Constitution wasn’t Amended with 1790 Act, but the 1790 Act was Amended by 1795 Act specifically taking out [ natural born Citizen] and replacing it with [Citizen] almost as if the political wind shifted and a mistake was recognized by many serving in the relative PROXIMITOUS period of TIME.

    Constitutional Citizen Reporter Scholar Geraldo Rivera schools Hannity on 1795
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=qZZJS_I8ARI

    Since 1790 preceeds 1795, the Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrates “Original Intent” for conservative-textualist-strict constructionist judges and justices. The Naturalization Act of 1795 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1798.

  26. avatar
    J.D. Reed January 10, 2016 at 4:12 pm #

    To follow up I looked up a wikipedia article on Canada’s 1947 citizenship law and it specified a five year wait for landed immigrants to become citizens, and I have not found any law that shortened the five-year requirement before 1970, although in later years the span was shortened.

  27. avatar
    Dave B. January 10, 2016 at 4:18 pm #

    Here’s the whole 1947 law as enacted:
    http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/canadian-citizenship-act-1947
    Under its terms, Ted Cruz was a “natural born Canadian citizen.” Which, of course, does not preclude him being a natural born citizen of any other country whose laws provide for it.

    J.D. Reed:
    To follow up I looked up a wikipedia article on Canada’s 1947 citizenship law and it specified a five year wait for landed immigrants to become citizens, and I have not found any law that shortened the five-year requirement before 1970, although in later years the span was shortened.

  28. avatar
    Arthur January 10, 2016 at 4:43 pm #

    bob: Passportless travel between the United States and Canada/Mexico/Caribbean ended after 9/11.

    In December of 2001 I flew from Minneapolis to Calgary with a hard shell golf case filled with swords and other edged weapons. All I had was a driver’s license and a smile. Flew back a week later. Probably couldn’t do it now.

  29. avatar
    Sudoku January 10, 2016 at 4:44 pm #

    You can (could) become a citizen of another country without losing your US citizenship, even if you make a routine statement disavowing it.

    https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual-nationality.html

  30. avatar
    gorefan January 10, 2016 at 4:49 pm #

    Dave B.: Under its terms, Ted Cruz was a “natural born Canadian citizen.”

    Page 69 governs Ted Cruz and page 71 governs his father and mother naturalizing as Canadian citizens. I don’t see how they could have been naturalized before his birth in 1970 if they moved to Canada in 1967.

  31. avatar
    y_p_w January 10, 2016 at 5:49 pm #

    gorefan: Page 69 governs Ted Cruz and page 71 governs his father and mother naturalizing as Canadian citizens.I don’t see how they could have been naturalized before his birth in 1970 if they moved to Canada in 1967.

    My reading of his parents was that they moved separately to Canada. Mom in 1967 and dad in 1969.

  32. avatar
    ZiziOfIx January 10, 2016 at 6:07 pm #

    BornNearTheUSA.com

    Reality Check:
    I think I will start stamping dollar bills with a “Where’s Cruz’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad” stamp. That plan worked so well for Mike Volin! You ought to lock up that domain Doc. wherescruzsconsularreportofbrithabroad.com sounds kind of catchy to me.

  33. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 10, 2016 at 6:23 pm #

    Smirk 4 Food: Grab iscruzacanuck.com as well…

    You can buy it for $2.99 the first year at Go Daddy.

  34. avatar
    Rickey January 10, 2016 at 6:46 pm #

    It would be fascinating to get inside of CRJ’s head and find out how his brain is wired.

    He repeatedly claims that everyone here believes that there is no difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen, even though he has been told repeatedly that we all agree that a naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen.

    Now he is suggesting that we believe that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen even if his mother was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, which is an absurd suggestion.

    The reality is that there is no evidence that Cruz’ mother ever lost her U.S. citizenship. If she was not a U.S. citizen when Cruz was born, he would not even be a U.S. citizen, much less a natural born citizen.

  35. avatar
    gorefan January 10, 2016 at 6:55 pm #

    y_p_w: My reading of his parents was that they moved separately to Canada.Mom in 1967 and dad in 1969.

    Really, i wonder of theirs was a green card marriage. LOL

  36. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 10, 2016 at 8:42 pm #

    Unless I am mistaken, the only way Cruz’ mother could have really renounced her US citizenship would have been for her to go in to a consular office in the country she was in and officially on the record sign and do a formal renunciation, which would then be documented and should be on file with the State Department, through National Archives at this point I think. I don’t think there is such a document because even as poor at research as most birfers seem to be a few of them have figured out how to research real records and get real answers. I’m betting there is no such record for the simple fact she never gave up her citizenship. I am also inclined to believe that there is also no consular birth record, as they probably never intended to stay. My suspicion is that under the rules of the time, that momma put him on her passport at some point as was usual at the time so return to the US would not have been an issue, and was all probably done and handled by the consulate there in Canada, and later he could have used that as evidence of citizenship to get his own passport and ID. Everything else is just so much idle speculation at this time until some real documents surface.

  37. avatar
    J.D. Reed January 10, 2016 at 9:49 pm #

    Joey: Since 1790 precedes 1795, the Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrates “Original Intent” for conservative-textualist-strict constructionist judges and justices. The Naturalization Act of 1795 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1798.

    Right. The 1790 act came less than three years after the constitutional convention. The fact that the first Congress passed a law declaring a certain category of people as natural born is strong evidence that members of this first Congress were satisfied that they possessed the authority to decide that certain types of people merit natural born status. The fact that five years later a successor congress substituted mere “citizen” for “natural born citizen” does not prove that the earlier Congress was wrong.
    The first Congress by my count had 10 senators who had been constitutional convention veterans (among 24 sitting at the time) and the House had eight convention veterans among 62, i believe, sitting members.
    Haven’t counted the number of convention alumni in the fourth Congress meeting in 1795, but I bet the number is smaller than in the first Congress.
    Quoting from the 1884 Supreme Court case Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony:
    The construction placed upon the Constitution by the first (copyright) act of 1790, and the act of 1802, by the men who were contemporary with the formation, many of whom were members of the convention which framed it, is of itself entited to very great weight . . .

  38. avatar
    CRJ January 10, 2016 at 11:09 pm #

    This was a rather nice piece of work because it illustrated 3 different ways to interpret the COTUS and illustrated frankly the reasons a SCOTUS decision would benefit the people tremendously. I’m not sure everyone would agree what they decided, however wouldn’t it be nice to be able to quote Judy v. Obama 14-9396 as a precedant between Presidential Candidates regarding Art. II., Sect 3, Clause 5 ?

    I think it would. After that, I’m going to share with you my Letter to U.S. Sen Ted Cruz the same as over 300+ News Agencies and Reporters got it.

    All CAPS because that’s the way his Camp Web Site dictates Messages.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-president-20160110-story.html

    Cruz to Prove Sincerity on SCOTUS HEARING NBC CASE
    Ltr to Cruz Camp Jan. 10, 2016
    DEAR SEN. CRUZ

    YOUR HELP IN DRAFTING A U.S. SEN RES FOR SCOTUS TO HEAR 14-9396 WOULD BE EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL FOR OUR COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.

    WITH A DEFACTO PRES IN WHITE HOUSE 7 YEARS A MUCH GREATER PROBABILITY EXIST FOR A LIBERAL LENIENCY IN INTREPETATION OF PRES QUALIFICATION NBC PRINCIPLE.

    NO ELECTION BETWEEN PARTIES MAKES THIS MUCH MORE UNIFYING FOR THE COUNTRY IN 2016 ELECTION.

    FORMA PAUPERIS WAS UNJUSTLY DENIED IN SCOTUS A U.S. SEN RES MIGHT REALLY HELP OVER COME.
    12 MONTH FEDERAL FORM
    IFP GRANTED BY FED CRT.
    IFP GRANTED BY CIRCUIT
    SCOTUS GRANTED IT IN ’12

    A PROCEDURE, PRACTISES, AND RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION FOR SCOTUS

    @HEIDISCRUZ SCOTUS CASE MIGHT SAVE #CRUZ2016 #BIRTHER PR https://T.CO/AI9RIWTROH

    WATCH VID
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hRVY2t3OchE

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2016/01/breaking-report-birther-birther-us.html?m=1

    I HOPE THAT YOU RECOGNISE I AM THE ONLY CANDIDATE IN AMERICA WITH A BI-PARTISAN FEDERAL COURT RECORD IN THE NBC PRINCIPLE.

    THAT TAKES OBAMA’S RACE-CARD AWAY AS I SUED MCCAIN FIRST IN ’08 AS A PRES. CANDIDATE. VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE MEDIA TO UNIFY THE STANDARD FOR AMERICA EQUALLY AND FAIRLY.

    I DON’T CARE IF I LOSE, I’M USE TO LOSING AND CAN DO THAT FOR THE COUNTRY IF CALLED TO DO SO.

    JUST DO NOT WANT A 51% WIN FOR CRUZ AND A 49% LOSS FOR HILLARY WHO WALKS IN FOR A NBC CHALLENGE.

    LETS DO IT NOW!

    39 MILLION WORTH OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND THIS IS A WAY YOU CAN ACT AND COME OUT SMELLING GOOD NO MATTER WHAT THEIR DECISIONS.

    NEEDS YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. MY UTAH SENATORS COULD CO-SPONSOR WITH YOU TO GET IT TO THE FLOOR QUICKLY.

    GOD BLESS YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE STANDS YOU HAVE COURAGEOUSLY.

    CODY ROBERT JUDY
    http://WWW.CODYJUDY.US

  39. avatar
    Rickey January 11, 2016 at 12:30 am #

    CRJ:

    DEAR SEN. CRUZ

    YOUR HELP IN DRAFTING A U.S. SEN RES FOR SCOTUS TO HEAR 14-9396 WOULD BE EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL FOR OUR COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.

    What part of “Case considered closed” do you not understand?

    The Senate can’t force the Supreme Court to reopen a closed case, or even pressure the Supreme Court to reopen a closed case. It’s a doctrine called “separation of powers.” You had your chance, you screwed it up, and your case is never, ever going to be revisited by SCOTUS.

    BTW, if you want anyone to pay attention to a letter you write, you should proofread it first. You misspelled “interpretation,” “practices,” and “recognize.”

  40. avatar
    y_p_w January 11, 2016 at 12:57 am #

    gorefan: Really, i wonder of theirs was a green card marriage. LOL

    In all seriousness, I think the elder Cruz had permanent status in the US as a political asylee. He could have returned to the US at any time and apparently did (i.e. he abandoned his family and moved to Texas).

  41. avatar
    y_p_w January 11, 2016 at 1:18 am #

    Notorial Dissent:
    Unless I am mistaken, the only way Cruz’ mother could have really renounced her US citizenship would have been for her to go in to a consular office in the country she was in and officially on the record sign and do a formal renunciation, which would then be documented and should be on file with the State Department, through National Archives at this point I think. I don’t think there is such a document because even as poor at research as most birfers seem to be a few of them have figured out how to research real records and get real answers. I’m betting there is no such record for the simple fact she never gave up her citizenship. I am also inclined to believe that there is also no consular birth record, as they probably never intended to stay. My suspicion is that under the rules of the time, that momma put him on her passport at some point as was usual at the time so return to the US would not have been an issue, and was all probably done and handled by the consulate there in Canada, and later he could have used that as evidence of citizenship to get his own passport and ID.Everything else is just so much idle speculation at this time until some real documents surface.

    The State Department considers “renouncing” and “relinquishing” different. Renouncing is a formal declaration before a consular officer. Relinquishing happens from performing what they call a “potentially expatriating act” such as naturalizing in another country. If you read the State Department info on how they handle it, when they get an inquiry or if they receive a passport application and have knowledge of the “potentially expatriating act” they’re supposed to interview the person and ask if it was the intent to relinquish citizenship. The Code of Federal Regulations sets guidelines for how to treat someone who may have naturalized in another country. The default is that they didn’t relinquish US citizenship and they’ll make that assumption unless there’s a reason to doubt it. If there was an intent expressed by the citizen, then the officer will collect an affidavit to that effect. I think there’s a difference between relinquishing and renunciation. The former is an administrative process while the latter involves a formal oath of renunciation.

    http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d675e3ae36419645a7761b0bc41d6783&rgn=div6&view=text&node=22:1.0.1.6.31.3&idno=22

    §50.40 Certification of loss of U.S. nationality.
    (a) Administrative presumption. In adjudicating potentially expatriating acts pursuant to INA 349(a), the Department has adopted an administrative presumption regarding certain acts and the intent to commit them. U.S. citizens who naturalize in a foreign country; take a routine oath of allegiance; or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government need not submit evidence of intent to retain U.S. nationality. In these three classes of cases, intent to retain U.S. citizenship will be presumed. A person who affirmatively asserts to a consular officer, after he or she has committed a potentially expatriating act, that it was his or her intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship will lose his or her U.S. citizenship. In other loss of nationality cases, the consular officer will ascertain whether or not there is evidence of intent to relinquish U.S. nationality.

    (b) Whenever a person admits that he or she had the intent to relinquish citizenship by the voluntary and intentional performance of one of the acts specified in Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the person consents to the execution of an affidavit to that effect, the diplomatic or consular officer shall attach such affidavit to the certificate of loss of nationality.

    (c) Whenever a diplomatic or consular officer has reason to believe that a person, while in a foreign country, has lost his U.S. nationality under any provision of chapter 3 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, or under any provision of chapter IV of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, he shall prepare a certificate of loss of nationality containing the facts upon which such belief is based and shall forward the certificate to the Department.

    (d) If the diplomatic or consular officer determines that any document containing information relevant to the statements in the certificate of loss of nationality should not be attached to the certificate, the person may summarize the pertinent information in the appropriate section of the certificate and send the documents together with the certificate to the Department.

    (e) If the certificate of loss of nationality is approved by the Department, a copy shall be forwarded to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice. The diplomatic or consular office in which the certificate was prepared shall then forward a copy of the certificate to the person to whom it relates or his representative.

    This is certainly different than those countries that don’t allow dual nationality. I know a naturalized US citizen originally from China. When she got naturalized she was joking about maybe keeping her Chinese passport to go back to China without having to pay for a visa. However, it was in her best interest not to lie. The visa application instructions included items for former Chinese citizens who naturalized in another country. She was required to submit her last Chinese passport along with the application. So they have her new US passport, her last Chinese passport (hadn’t expired yet or even been used), and a couple of photos. As a former Chinese citizen she also qualified for a multiple entry visa valid for two years. So she got her US passport back. She did get her Chinese passport back, but with the corners cut and a cancellation stamp. So basically they took her naturalization as a US citizen and obtaining of a US passport as evidence she relinquished her Chinese citizenship. No consular officer asking her if that was her intent. I think that’s the way a lot of countries handle their citizens who naturalize elsewhere.

  42. avatar
    Lupin January 11, 2016 at 3:16 am #

    Wouldn’t it be up to Congress (not SCOTUS) to remove any doubts as they did with McCain?

  43. avatar
    Lupin January 11, 2016 at 3:19 am #

    y_p_w: The State Department considers “renouncing” and “relinquishing” different. Renouncing is a formal declaration before a consular officer. Relinquishing happens from performing what they call a “potentially expatriating act” such as naturalizing in another country.

    Your Congress seems to be somewhat schizophrenic on this issue.

    On the one hand, what you said. OTOH the IRS has been going after expats like there’s no way no how they can ever NOT be Americans & subject to paying US taxes even if/when they do all the paperwork to renounce their citizenship.

    I mean, either you cling to your citizens, or you let them go/kick them out; but you can’t do both at the same time.

  44. avatar
    bovril January 11, 2016 at 5:39 am #

    Lupin,

    The IRS in the cases you mention are doing exactly what every other governmental tax revenue function does.

    If you are attempting to avoid paying tax on income earned or reasonably regarded as having been earned in the US by becoming a citizen of another country they will chase you for the tax earned TO THAT POINT.

    So the cases have typically been around US citizens with substantial equity and stock in companies that they are attempting to avoid paying earned and deferred tax, in general capital gains taxes, on their holdings.

    Once the taxes on earnings, assets etc accrued to the point of taking up the citizenship in another country and relinquishment of US citizenship have been paid off then that is it as far as the IRS is concerned.

    Of course if you continue to hold US assets in the US and still attempt to stiff the US government on earned income them they will legitimately chase you for the tax.

  45. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 11, 2016 at 5:52 am #

    J.D. Reed: The first Congress by my count had 10 senators who had been constitutional convention veterans (among 24 sitting at the time) and the House had eight convention veterans among 62, i believe, sitting members.

    No doubt birthers would also throw them under the bus, including Saint George Washington himself, if necessary.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 11, 2016 at 8:03 am #

    And the First Congress had 8 members of the Convention’s Committee of 11 that added the natural born citizen clause to the draft Constitution.

    J.D. Reed: The first Congress by my count had 10 senators who had been constitutional convention veterans (among 24 sitting at the time) and the House had eight convention veterans among 62, i believe, sitting members.

  47. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 11, 2016 at 9:03 am #

    I’ve been saying it all along. CUBA! Ted Cruz is a Cuban.

    Trump2016!

  48. avatar
    y_p_w January 11, 2016 at 12:07 pm #

    It may not even be settled with a CRBA. Look for any copies. They typically state the names of the parents. However, they don’t specify how the child gained citizenship, just that there’s evidence.

    Apparent a strict “originalist” would come to the conclusion that Cruz is not a natural-born citizen, since the common law understanding at the time of the Constitution was that citizenship by blood could only pass from the father. And guess what Cruz’s Constitutional philosophy is?

    I for one think he should be eligible. We’ve evolved our thinking over the years to recognize that natives and those of African ancestry are citizens.

  49. avatar
    elmo January 11, 2016 at 12:49 pm #

    bob: Goldstein is merely saying there’s no evidence that Cruz’s mother ever lost her U.S. citizenship.

    Nor was there any evidence that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, but he was still required to show the birth certificate to prove it.

    Similarly, Cruz should show the evidence that establishes his citizenship at birth. So far, he hasn’t.

    If he has no Report of Consular Birth abroad, he should release those secondary documents that he used to apply for a passport.

  50. avatar
    y_p_w January 11, 2016 at 1:04 pm #

    elmo: Nor was there any evidence that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, but he was still required to show the birth certificate to prove it.

    Similarly, Cruz should show the evidence that establishes his citizenship at birth. So far, he hasn’t.

    If he has no Report of Consular Birth abroad, he should release those secondary documents that he used to apply for a passport.

    Again, there’s no requirement to obtain a CRBA. The State Department says it’s OK to just obtain a US passport. The documentation requirements to do so read a lot like those needed for a CRBA application, but I understand they’re not as stringent. He’s already released a copy of her BC. Even so, I’m not sure that what he released would meet the State Department’s requirements. They want a self authenticating document. The image of his mother’s BC looks like the original form, but it’s not certified. I’m not sure what they did with it, since it’s unusual these days for a vital records agency to give up the original. I’m guessing they made a copy such as through microform or some other copying process. I’ve seen a few BC copies that show signs of coming from microform, including smudges and dust specks.

  51. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 11, 2016 at 1:07 pm #

    McCain was eligible. Cruz is not.

    Lupin:
    Wouldn’t it be up to Congress (not SCOTUS) to remove any doubts as they did with McCain?

  52. avatar
    CRJ January 11, 2016 at 1:11 pm #

    @Rickey BTW, if you want anyone to pay attention to a letter you write, you should proofread it first. You misspelled “interpretation,” “practices,” and “recognize.”]

    You paid plenty of attention to it.
    Stupid.. Stupid..Stupid spellchecker 😂😂😂

    I’m still a FIRM believer that if the right people noticed the injustice of the IFP Denial as a clerical error, say for instance in a U.S. Senate Resolution that the United States Supreme Court would check check check ✔ ✔ ✔ their own mis spelled words.

    Don’t You? Of course you know what NON-BINDING means don’t you? You of course also know where IMPEACHMENT hearings are held for Supreme Court Justices due to bad behavior.

    You know it’s not that your void of intelligence Rickey, it’s that you never let any of yours work for me.

  53. avatar
    CRJ January 11, 2016 at 1:47 pm #

    @Rickey [What part of “Case considered closed” do you not understand?]

    Guess it’s the part where the Case is considered open. You know it only takes a couple of big news stories from the MainStream News Media spotlighting for instance in The Brown and Black Forum the absolute atrocity of access to the Courts on the basis of income.

    The story that Shows with Facts a delerium of common sense and law against poor people perped in the Judicial Branch even in its highest Court.

    Links that with injustices happening on the Street as well, before people in Appointed Seats start realising there comes an end to tyranny.

    No @Rickey I didn’t blow it. . not at all. Sound people with sound intelligence can figure that out easier than figuring out how to spell “realise”.

    And while your petulant ad nauseam detail for spelling is admirable, it is tarnished in your unsympathetic defense for Justice.

    Have you written a letter all [spelled] correctly to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices indicating that while you may not agree with CRJ on everything, the diservice to [access to the Courts] as well his [my] Claim that Justice is hiding behind a Cover-Up on the Principle of NBC is only made richer by their Denial of a Motion for Forma Pauperis that even they and the lower courts recognised a short period of time ago?

    Your talents of spelling do no one any good if you hide them from Justice. @Rickey .. Let your Candle Light shine and do not hide it under the basket .

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2016/01/breaking-report-birther-birther-us.html?m=1

  54. avatar
    Rickey January 11, 2016 at 2:09 pm #

    CRJ:

    Guess it’s the part where the Case is considered open.

    The only place that it is considered open is in your fevered imagination. The District Court dismissed it, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, and it is too late for you to file another cert petition with SCOTUS.

    And while your petulant ad nauseam detail for spelling is admirable, it is tarnished in your unsympathetic defense for Justice.

    If you had actually been denied justice I would be at the head of the line decrying the decision.

    As for spelling, anyone who has any experience in the business world or the legal world know that correspondence which contains numerous misspellings and grammatical errors immediately creates a bad impression. You don’t want to open your cry for help with a bad impression. That is friendly advice, not petulance.

    Besides, there is no excuse for misspellings when you post at Obama Conspiracy Theories. If you misspell a word, it is automatically underlined. If a word you typed is underlined, it behooves you to look up the correct spelling and fix it. The spell checker is not perfect, but I would guess that it is correct 99% of the time.

  55. avatar
    Jim January 11, 2016 at 2:34 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    McCain was eligible. Cruz is not.

    Not according to SCOTUS…
    Minor V Happersett
    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides 6 that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” 7 and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. ”

    If you were born a citizen, you’re eligible. If you gain citizenship later, then you have to be naturalized at a later time. Senator Cruz, in case you didn’t know your constitution, has to be a citizen to be a Senator, meaning since he didn’t get naturalized, he must be natural-born. Sorry to burst your bubble there Nancy.

  56. avatar
    CRJ January 11, 2016 at 2:36 pm #

    What do you think about a cross-party lines Civil Rights Law Suit for instance CRJ v. Ted Cruz with this legal case theory?

    “Constitutionally protected privileges” were accessed in Minor v. Happersett in her case the right to vote verses the infraction of penalty she received by a gender inequality cleared up by the 19th Amendment that over-ruled Minor v. Happersett declaring gender unacceptable in the Voting Arena closely mirroring Elections.

    As a limb from that tree, the Constitutionally Protected Prievilege of running for President is infracted upon those so qualified to do so free and uninpaired by those so unqualified collecting acorns or contributions under the banner or Standard of the Qualifications for that Office listed in the Constitution.

    Tis just as grave of a discrimination to infringe upon those with the Privilege and Rights of running for Office, who are qualified by the Constitutions Demands in the Office of President, as not protecting a women’s right to vote in a Court.

    For a Court to not stop an illegal USURPATION of the Office by the Candidacy of one not Qualified and brought to its attention by one who is Qualified is malfeasance of the rights and privileges of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. section 1

    (?)

    @Rickey [Besides, there is no excuse for misspellings when you post at Obama Conspiracy Theories. If you misspell a word, it is automatically underlined. If a word you typed is underlined, it behooves you to look up the correct spelling and fix it. The spell checker is not perfect, but I would guess that it is correct 99% of the time.]

    That feature is not available to me on my phone, and my computer blew up.. Lol CRUZ’s Web doesn’t offer spell check either and CAPS all letters.

    Your advise is recognised by me as good though. I do think the understanding is not lost however in the degree of misspellings. You do recognise that don’t you?

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 11, 2016 at 2:42 pm #

    I think that it would be summarily dismissed for lack of standing. Full stop.

    CRJ: What do you think about a cross-party lines Civil Rights Law Suit for instance CRJ v. Ted Cruz with this legal case theory?

  58. avatar
    CRJ January 11, 2016 at 2:50 pm #

    @Doc [I think that it would be summarily dismissed for lack of standing. Full stop.]

    What about the Laws that protect a Business with a licence to practise from those practising without a licence?

    This knows no party lines.

    This was my legal theory in bringing in Monopoly and Cartel Acts like the Clayton Act.. There are myriads of people warning the RNC of Chris’s ineligibility and it culpitates them or makes them accessories to those ineligible or practising without a license.

    What if I said Clinton v. Cruz right now?

    If your just hung up on the CRJ Part of STANDING?

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 11, 2016 at 2:53 pm #

    The issue is not party–it’s legal standing. No standing, no case.

    CRJ: This knows no party lines.

  60. avatar
    bob January 11, 2016 at 3:01 pm #

    CRJ:
    What do you think about a cross-party lines Civil Rights Law Suit for instanceCRJ v. Ted Cruz with this legal case theory?

    I think Judy should move on with his life. No one cares what he thinks, and his beliefs about the law are so wrong they are labeled frivolous.

    Doc, despite Judy’s mispelled word salad, has correctly identified the issue: No standing. At this moment in time, Clinton lacks standing because she and Cruz are not currently competitiors.

  61. avatar
    CRJ January 11, 2016 at 3:22 pm #

    @Bob [ I think Judy should move on with his life. No one cares what he thinks,]
    Follow the advice of your colleagues then and ignore me. 😂 Just don’t infringe on my political therapy ok?

    Now, it just bugs me bad when those who are qualified are sabatoged by those who are unqualified. Tell me Clinton wouldn’t like the 39Million contributed to Cruz’s Campaign that might be available to her on the Open Market as a defender of the Constitution herself.. Supposedly anyway?

    I just hate the idea of Mom and Pop getting swindled by a slick talking politician for 15 million dollars. . or $25. It hits my nerves.

    If Clinton sued Cruz I think it would only bolster her defense of a REPUBLICAN Partisan attack. She could use her suit against Cruz’s qualifications as evidense of the partisan prosecution. She would need every drop she could squeeze factually unimagined in what would be asserted by prosecution as “conspiracy theory”.

    According to a Rasmussen report poll If she’s indicted, 53% of Democrats think she should keep running. . more women than men though think she should quit if indicted interestingly enough so that hurts her base.
    http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2016/do_voters_think_a_candidate_should_quit_if_indicted

    #DemDebate #Democrats brace FBI PROBE into Public Corruption at the Intersection of Clinton Foundation and Secretary Of State Office proceeds.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

  62. avatar
    bob January 11, 2016 at 3:41 pm #

    CRJ:
    Just don’t infringe on my political therapy ok?

    No one is infringing on anything. I have no idea what “political therapy” is, but, clearly, it isn’t working for Judy. Which is why he should move on. Because no one cares what Judy thinks. Least of all Clinton, who is not aware of Judy’s stellar advice, and, if she was, would surely ignore it. Because it has no basis in current U.S. law, and is a bad idea politically.

    Now, it just bugs me bad when those who are qualified are sabatoged by those who are unqualified.

    Judy’s feelings aside, it is clear from the U.S. Constitution and case law that only those with actual standing could potentially bring a successful lawsuit. If Judy desires to expand the concept of standing, whining on this blog about it is about the least effective method to cause that change.

  63. avatar
    gorefan January 11, 2016 at 3:47 pm #

    Michael Ramsey on Ted Cruz and NBC.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2712485

  64. avatar
    CRJ January 11, 2016 at 4:08 pm #

    @Bob [Judy desires to expand the concept of standing, whining on this blog about it is about the least effective method to cause that change.]

    Well, so in Bob’s Op-ed Clinton has no Standing as a Candidate for Pres to defend an illegal theft of contributions towards an illegal Candidate for the same Office she’s running for.

    This despite evidence that those co opted voters may vote for her across party lines in a General Election.

    Anyone think different?

  65. avatar
    bob January 11, 2016 at 4:16 pm #

    CRJ:
    Well, so in Bob’s Op-ed Clinton has no Standing as a Candidate for Pres to defend an illegal theft of contributions towards an illegal Candidate for the same Office she’s running for.

    When Judy made essentially the same argument in 2012, the district court dismissed Judy’s suit — and labeled it frivolous. And the 10th Circuit affirmed that dismissal. So it isn’t my opinion; it is the ruling from the courts.

    (And, hint: Clinton and Cruz are presently in different contests: to become their respective party’s nominees.)

    Showing once again Judy is incapable of learning.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 11, 2016 at 4:17 pm #

    Thanks. I’m going through this now. I have one up-front objection, and that is Ramsey gives the word “natural” a stand-alone meaning, rather than deeming it part of the idiom “natural born.”

    Lord Dicey defines “natural born British Subject”, and the Oxford English Dictionary defines “natural born” in ways contrary to how Ramsey constructs a definition from constituent words.

    Ramsey says that the word “natural” is superfluous if “natural born citizen” just means “born citizen” but that is not the case if “natural born” is idiomatic. He says “natural” is the converse of “statutory.” And this is the (from my point of view) straw man that Ramsey attempts to defeat.

    gorefan: Michael Ramsey on Ted Cruz and NBC.

  67. avatar
    Rickey January 11, 2016 at 4:36 pm #

    CRJ:

    What about the Laws that protect a Business with a licence to practise from those practising without a licence?

    Licensing laws aren’t there to prevent licensed businesses from having to compete with unlicensed businesses. They are there to protect consumers from unlicensed businesses.

    My business is licensed by New York State. If I learn of a competitor that is unlicensed, my recourse is to report the competitor to the authorities. I would not have standing to sue the unlicensed business, because I could not demonstrate a particularized harm to my business. At most I would have a generalized grievance which is shared by every other business which does my type of work.

    This was my legal theory in bringing in Monopoly and Cartel Acts like the Clayton Act.. There are myriads of people warning the RNC of Chris’s ineligibility and it culpitates them or makes them accessories to those ineligible or practising without a license.

    A theory which the courts told you is without merit.

    What if I said Clinton v. Cruz right now?

    Clinton has no standing to sue Cruz right now. They are not yet running against each other.

  68. avatar
    gorefan January 11, 2016 at 4:47 pm #

    IMO this may be the best summary of NBC I’ve read in awhile. Professor Ramsey covers the subject well and included the Massachusetts Acts of Naturalization to show the derivation of the term.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2712485

  69. avatar
    Rickey January 11, 2016 at 4:50 pm #

    CRJ:

    Now, it just bugs me bad when those who are qualified are sabatoged by those who are unqualified. Tell me Clinton wouldn’t like the 39Million contributed to Cruz’s Campaign that might be available to her on the Open Market as a defender of the Constitution herself.. Supposedly anyway?

    Clinton could never establish that even a dollar of that $39 million would have gone to her campaign if Cruz were not in the race. Her damages would be entirely speculative, hence no standing on the basis of campaign contributions.

    According to a Rasmussen report poll If she’s indicted, 53% of Democrats think she should keep running.

    Clinton is not going to be indicted. Contrary to what you want to believe, there has been no referral to the FBI for a criminal investigation of Clinton. As the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community and the Inspector General of the State Department stated:

    The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession. An important distinction is that the ICIG did not
    make a criminal referral
    – it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.

    https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

  70. avatar
    bgansel9 January 12, 2016 at 6:08 pm #

    Even if Eleanor Darragh Cruz did vote in the Canadian election, would she not be a dual citizen with the right to also vote in U.S. elections?

  71. avatar
    y_p_w January 13, 2016 at 2:45 pm #

    bgansel9:
    Even if Eleanor Darragh Cruz did vote in the Canadian election, would she not be a dual citizen with the right to also vote in U.S. elections?

    It’s not certain if she would have. The State Dept claims that they’ll ask if someone who naturalized in another country meant to relinquish US citizenship when they get an opportunity. If the answer is no, that’s supposed to be the end of it and they note that citizenship is not lost.

    And in any case, she most likely would not have even been eligible for naturalization in about three years. The residence requirement at the time was supposedly five years. No it’s by days – the equivalent of 4 years in the past 6 years.

  72. avatar
    gorefan January 15, 2016 at 11:59 am #

    Cruz may not have a CRBA and he would not need one to obtain a U.S. passport.

    Foreign Birth Documents + Parent(s) Citizenship Evidence

    If you claim citizenship through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s), but cannot submit a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth, you must submit all of the following:

    Your foreign birth certificate (translated to English),

    Evidence of citizenship of your U.S. citizen parent,

    Your parents’ marriage certificate, and

    A statement of your U.S. citizen parent detailing all periods and places of residence or physical presence in the United States and abroad before your birth.

    https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/passports/information/secondary-evidence.html

  73. avatar
    y_p_w January 15, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

    gorefan:
    Cruz may not have a CRBA and he would not need one to obtain a U.S. passport.

    Foreign Birth Documents + Parent(s) Citizenship Evidence

    If you claim citizenship through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s), but cannot submit a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth, you must submit all of the following:

    Your foreign birth certificate (translated to English),

    Evidence of citizenship of your U.S. citizen parent,

    Your parents’ marriage certificate, and

    A statement of your U.S. citizen parent detailing all periods and places of residence or physical presence in the United States and abroad before your birth.

    https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/passports/information/secondary-evidence.html

    I’ve used that list a few times in disucssions. There’s also this from the US Embassy in Ottawa website (I hinted at it earlier):

    http://canada.usembassy.gov/consular_services/birth-abroad.html

    (Note: It is not necessary to obtain a CRBA. If it is more convenient, you may apply for a passport in lieu of a CRBA. In Canada, please consult the First-time passport section of this website. In the United States, you may apply at any passport acceptance agency. Consult the State Department website to find the passport acceptance agency closest to you.)

  74. avatar
    Reality Check January 15, 2016 at 2:08 pm #

    Thanks gorefan. I was wondering what documentation would be required. I assume that once you have a US passport that you could use that in connection with your foreign birth certificate for proof of citizenship and identity documentation purposes.

    gorefan: Cruz may not have a CRBA and he would not need one to obtain a U.S. passport.

  75. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2016 at 10:16 am #

    Hi, everyone: Haven’t been here for a long time, but I’ve been following the Cruz kerfuffle and popped in to add my 2 cents.

    On the CRBA, as noted, while the State Dept. advises filing one, it isn’t necessary. You either meet the statutory requirements or you don’t.

    On the Canadian voter list. Unlike the US, Canada doesn’t have voters register. Elections Canada prepares the list and if you are left off when you should be on or vice versa, you request a correction. Today, they compile the list from various sources-tax returns, driver’s licenses, etc. Back then (1970s) they sent enumerators door-to-door to ask at each house who was a Canadian citizen over 18 and then posted the lists on utility poles, supermarkets bulletin boards, etc. (pre-internet days; now, of course, it’s on line). Since Canadian elections are not on a fixed schedule, but are called by the government in power at their discretion and campaigns last only around 6 weeks (something the US should strongly consider emulating) the lists were compiled in a hurry. So, mistakes were not unknown. If the Cruzes were out when the enumerators knocked they might have put them down as voters. In principle, they should have corrected the list if they weren’t citizens, but few did that. As long as you didn’t actually vote, there was no issue, since you could always say you didn’t bother checking the list. Those who complained were legitimate voters left off.

    So, we simply do not know if Mrs. Cruz became a Canuck. Nor would that invalidate her US citizenship, since the default assumption is that one who naturalizes in another country intends to remain a US citizen unless they specifically state otherwise at a US consulate or embassy.

    On Lupin’s demand for a Senate resolution, that would not change anything. The senate can’t make an ineligible person eligible or vice versa. Cruz’s situation is a bit more dicey than McCain’s, since Canada was never US territory and only one parent was a US citizen and they weren’t in the military. Most importantly, the senators have no desire to have a resolution for Cruz. While McCain is liked and admired by his colleagues of both parties, Cruz is detested. That alone ought to disqualify him.

  76. avatar
    y_p_w January 16, 2016 at 7:04 pm #

    Scientist:
    So, we simply do not know if Mrs. Cruz became a Canuck. Nor would that invalidate her US citizenship, since the default assumption is that one who naturalizes in another country intends to remain a US citizen unless they specifically state otherwise at a US consulate or embassy.

    On Lupin’s demand for a Senate resolution, that would not change anything.The senate can’t make an ineligible person eligible or vice versa.Cruz’s situation is a bit more dicey than McCain’s, since Canada was never US territory and only one parent was a US citizen and they weren’t in the military.Most importantly, the senators have no desire to have a resolution for Cruz.While McCain is liked and admired by his colleagues of both parties, Cruz is detested.That alone ought to disqualify him.

    There was the Gabriel Chin paper that claimed that McCain’s status in the Canal Zone didn’t make him a US citizen at birth. He claimed it was a policy failure to leave the Canal Zone without a citizenship law until after McCain’s birth, although it did make him a US citizen at the point the law went into effect. His contention was that if he had been born just a few hundred yards away in Panama, he would have been a natural-born citizen.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm #

    Yes, the statute made the children of citizens born (IIRC) outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States citizens. The Panama Canal Zone was outside the limits, but within the jurisdiction. The 1937 law passed to cover the loophole made such children citizens at birth retroactively. So paradoxically McCain would have been a citizen at birth, but not a citizen at the time of his birth.

    y_p_w: There was the Gabriel Chin paper that claimed that McCain’s status in the Canal Zone didn’t make him a US citizen at birth. He claimed it was a policy failure to leave the Canal Zone without a citizenship law until after McCain’s birth, although it did make him a US citizen at the point the law went into effect. His contention was that if he had been born just a few hundred yards away in Panama, he would have been a natural-born citizen.

  78. avatar
    y_p_w January 16, 2016 at 8:36 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yes, the statute made the children of citizens born (IIRC) outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States citizens. The Panama Canal Zone was outside the limits, but within the jurisdiction. The 1936 law passed cover the loophole made such children citizens at birth retroactively. So paradoxically McCain would have been a citizen at birth, but not a citizen at the time of his birth.

    Professor Chin’s premise was that the Insular Cases (which were racist at their core) meant that absent a statute saying otherwise, there was no specific US citizenship on the basis of being born in the Canal Zone. And the plain reading of what’s now 8 USC 1403 says that the citizenship would be for those born in the Canal Zone as far back as 1904, but it didn’t make their citizenship retroactive. The other laws mention “citizen at birth”.

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapIII-partI-sec1403.htm

    §1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
    (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”

    So the contention is that the citizenship of someone born in the Canal Zone after the law went into effect was of a citizen at birth, but for someone born before the law, it would be as citizenship at the time the law went into effect.

  79. avatar
    y_p_w January 16, 2016 at 8:44 pm #

    Here’s Professor Chin’s treatment. I’m not quite sure about his claim that section 1993 didn’t otherwise cover McCain’s situation, but it’s clear that 8 USC 1403 didn’t make citizenship by this statute retroactive to birth. It effectively naturalized someone who was born before the law and gave birthright citizenship after the law.

    http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=mlr_fi

    In 1936, the Canal Zone fell into a gap in the law, covered neither by the citizenship clause nor Revised Statutes section 1993 (passed as the Act of May 24, 1934), the only statute applicable to births to U.S. citizens outside the United States. As then-Representative John Sparkman explained in 1937: “the Canal Zone is not such foreign territory as to come under the law of 1855 [Revised Statutes section 1993] and, on the other hand, it is not part of the United States which would bring it within the fourteenth amendment.” The problem was well known; Richard W. Flournoy’s 1934 American Bar Association Journal article, Proposed Codification of Our Chaotic Nationality Laws, explained “we have no statutory provisions defining the nationality status of persons born in the Canal Zone . . . .”

    Because the Canal Zone was a “no man’s land,” in the words of Representative Sparkman, in 1937 Congress passed a statute, the Act of Aug. 4, 1937 (now codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1403(a)) granting citizenship to “[a]ny person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904” who had at least one U.S. citizen parent. This Act made Senator McCain a U.S. citizen before his first birthday. But again, to be a natural born citizen, one must be a citizen at the moment of birth. Since Senator McCain became a citizen in his eleventh month of life, he does not satisfy this criterion, is not a natural born citizen, and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President.”

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2016 at 10:26 pm #

    I was relying on federal judge Alsup’s comment in the Robinson case. He wrote:

    “The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. ”

    y_p_w: ’m not quite sure about his claim that section 1993 didn’t otherwise cover McCain’s situation, but it’s clear that 8 USC 1403 didn’t make citizenship by this statute retroactive to birth. It effectively naturalized someone who was born before the law and gave birthright citizenship after the law.

  81. avatar
    y_p_w January 16, 2016 at 10:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I was relying on federal judge Alsup’s comment in the Robinson case. He wrote:

    “The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth.In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. ”

    I don’t buy it. While I suppose Section 1993 uses the same “declared to be a citizen of the United States” wording, the necessary requirement was that the father had been a citizen before or at the time of birth. There was no practical reason to make the citizenship retroactive to any time. You either were or you weren’t at the time your child was born.

    8 USC 1403(a) was meant to cover the failure to pass a law for Panama Canal Zone citizenship. While it does reach back in time regarding birth (and the parent(s) status at the time of birth), I don’t read it as the citizenship reaching back. You’re declared. There were other laws that declared those living in US territories to be US citizens. The law for Puerto Rico was a lot better written – using a specific date as the date one was declared to be a new US citizen and then stating that birth afterwards granted US citizenship at birth.

    There’s also a lot of interpretation going on of course. I’m reading the language of Section 1993 “born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” to mean that unincorporated territories are outside the United States for citizenship purposes, unless there’s a law to address that. While 8 USC 1403(b) doesn’t specifically say it, the State Dept requires that a father requires “legitimization” in order to pass on US citizenship to his child.

  82. avatar
    y_p_w January 17, 2016 at 10:24 pm #

    I found out a bit more about Canada’s dual-nationality law, which was repealed in 1977. It wasn’t a flat-out ban on dual-nationality like some countries, but a set of restrictions meant to discourage it. Apparently Canada didn’t allow a Canadian citizen to **voluntarily** take up another citizenship while keeping Canadian citizenship. However, I’m not sure how it would have affected someone who naturalized as a Canadian citizen as Cruz’s father reportedly did and that his mother was rumored to have done.

    I found some position piece on the subject, and it didn’t sound as if dual-citizenship at birth was an issue. As far as I could tell, the only way it kicked in would be if a Canadian naturalized as another nation’s citizen.

  83. avatar
    bgansel9 January 20, 2016 at 1:50 am #

    john: Le’s let the Obots work for us. I would love to see Trump become the nominee. Any birther stuff that slows down Cruz is fine with me. I just want Trump to become the nominee so he steamroll Hillary Clinton.

    and that’s the difference between you and me. I’m supporting Hillary, but I want the honest truth about Cruz’s birth to prevail. If he is a natural born citizen, he should be allowed to run for president, as much as I oppose his rhetoric and his policies. You don’t care about the truth, just about winning.

    And, by the way, what makes you think Donald Trump is going to “steamroll Hillary” when Donald Trump has attacked just about every single minority demographic which resides in this country? He won’t get the black vote, he won’t get the hispanic vote, he won’t get the majority women’s vote. He’s not as popular as you seem to think he is. It’s so interesting to watch the far right get so psyched up about their 18 percent of U.S. electorate support. LOL