Trump resumes Canada critique of Cruz

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

14 years without Eleanor filing US taxes enough fer ya' ?

The tax problem could come back another way. I heard their Canadian business was licensed as them being Canadians, but haven't checked it personally. Not paying taxes would seem to indicate it too.

 

[Jan2017]

. They moved back to the US the next year.

In 1974 they were still in Canada, and Rafael Bienvenido and wife Eleanor had Canadian citizenship and enumerated for the Canada federal election.
Her second foreign husband came back to the US as a Canadian citizen about 6 months before
the Canada citizen mother and Canada native born Rafael jr.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I think you need to reword that. It isn't accurate.

The list comes not from official voter rolls but a door to door survey asking if anybody in the house was eligible to vote. Ted Sr. had become a citizen that year and would have been eligible. They then listed all the names of people in the household.

Mistakes were frequent (i.e. “Raphael” instead of “Rafael”), and voters were given the opportunity to fix errors.

Ezra Levant, a Canadian conservative journalist who was born and raised in Calgary, recalled the process of enumeration.

“It was like a census… they were very quick and non-obtrusive visits, someone standing in your doorstep,” he told Breitbart News via e-mail. “They certainly didn’t ask for ID.

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

Still failing to show she was not a US Citizen at the time of Ted's birth.

 

[Jan2017]

The tax problem could come back another way. I heard their Canadian business was licensed as them being Canadians, but haven't checked it personally. Not paying taxes would seem to indicate it too.

Probably paid Canada revenue taxes and were getting the use of the main provincial hospital - as Canadians in process of acquiring more citizenship rights at least.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Using government facilities or paying taxes is not taking on the citizenship of that country. Her husband becoming Canadian did not make her or Ted become Canadian.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

The list comes not from official voter rolls but a door to door survey asking if anybody in the house was eligible to vote. Ted Sr. had become a citizen that year and would have been eligible.

It wasn't a girl scout survey. It was suppose to be an official list of eligible voters who were Canadian citizens from the government.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/

What you mean is it doesn't prove she voted - which would be an act of expatriation. Instead, it shows, in addition to the law operating at the time, that Canada considered her a citizen - she could have voted if she wanted to.

I think she did. She was restarting her life there. Their business was there. Her son was born there. She hadn't been in America for a long time, england before canada. Her husband wasn't an american. she had no expectation of returning, why wouldn't she vote? And there are other ways to prove her willing participation - such as their business licence and taxes.

But even then, it doesn't matter. There are still circumstances where Cruz may not be a citizen under naturalization laws depending. Cruz is not clearly a citizen. he is definitely not natural born.

 

[Jan2017]

Using government facilities or paying taxes is not taking on the citizenship of that country. Her husband becoming Canadian did not make her or Ted become Canadian.

US law regards it's as acts against allegiance to the United States -
if she did not report her foreign income to the US as a foreign residing citizen she's giving up US citizenship . . .

Eleanor lying on the UK birth certificate naming a US citizen father for first son Michael would be a felony fraudulent act also against her favor retaining full US citizenship rights . . . she really dropped the ball back in the 1960's on her US citizenship.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Using government facilities or paying taxes is not taking on the citizenship of that country. Her husband becoming Canadian did not make her or Ted become Canadian.

This is not right. I quoted the laws. Canada considered both of them Canadian citizens.

It's up to you to prove she still retained dual citizenship due to a temporary flux caused by different law sets. And her being at most a dual citizenship and ted cruz at most being a naturalized citizen - maybe - is far less then when we started.

 

[Zippyjuan]

This is not right. I quoted the laws. Canada considered both of them Canadian citizens.

It's up to you to prove she still retained dual citizenship due to a temporary flux caused by different law sets. And her being at most a dual citizenship and ted cruz at most being a naturalized citizen - maybe - is far less then when we started.

What does Canadian law say about that?

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=357&top=5

Do I become a Canadian citizen when I marry a Canadian?

No. Marriage to a Canadian citizen does not give you citizenship.

If you want to become a Canadian citizen, you must follow the same steps as everyone else. That is, there is not a special process for spouses of Canadian citizens to become citizens.

You must meet several requirements to apply for citizenship. Two of them are:

You must have been physically present in Canada as a permanent resident for at least 1,460 days during the six years immediately before the date of your application.
You must also be physically present for at least 183 days during each of four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of application.
If you are not a permanent resident or do not live in Canada, your Canadian spouse can sponsor you to become a permanent resident. See the processing times for how long this step might take.

When you are a permanent resident or if you are a permanent resident now, and you have lived in Canada long enough, you may apply for citizenship if you meet the other requirements. Use the residence calculator to learn if you have lived in Canada long enough.

First she needs to have been declared a "permanent resident". Then she must live in the country for at least four of six years before she can even begin the application process to become Canadian.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Wrong law. That isn't Canadian law back then. And I already posted it on the thread.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Which post? Or new link? Nm. Found it. Post #16.

grant of citizenship to a foreign woman married to a Canadian man after one year's residence as a landed immigrant

That applies to somebody who marries a person who is already a Canadian citizen. They were married BEFORE he became citizen so that does not apply to her. She married a Cuban citizen- not a Canadian.

 

[fedupinmo]

He became Canadian three years after his son Ted was born and four years after his marriage (1973- Ted was born in 1970- married 1969). They moved back to the US the next year. His becoming Canadian does not mean his wife was no longer a US citizen (besides the problem of it happening AFTER Ted was born which either way means she was US citizen at the time of his birth which is the important thing).

Actually, IIRC, Rafael Senior left his family in Canada in 1974 to move by himself to the US, found religion in 1975, and went back to get his family then.

 

[fedupinmo]

It wasn't a girl scout survey. It was suppose to be an official list of eligible voters who were Canadian citizens from the government.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/

What you mean is it doesn't prove she voted - which would be an act of expatriation. Instead, it shows, in addition to the law operating at the time, that Canada considered her a citizen - she could have voted if she wanted to.

I think she did. She was restarting her life there. Their business was there. Her son was born there. She hadn't been in America for a long time, england before canada. Her husband wasn't an american. she had no expectation of returning, why wouldn't she vote? And there are other ways to prove her willing participation - such as their business licence and taxes.

But even then, it doesn't matter. There are still circumstances where Cruz may not be a citizen under naturalization laws depending. Cruz is not clearly a citizen. he is definitely not natural born.

Agree with the rest, but bolded portion is not true. Afroyim v Rusk (1967):
Syllabus
Petitioner, of Polish birth, became a naturalized American citizen in 1926. He went to Israel in 1950, and in 1951 voted in an Israeli legislative election. The State Department subsequently refused to renew his passport, maintaining that petitioner had lost his citizenship by virtue of § 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940 which provides that a United States citizen shall "lose" his citizenship if he votes in a foreign political election. Petitioner then brought this declaratory judgment action alleging the unconstitutionality of § 401(e). On the basis of Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, the District Court and Court of Appeals held that Congress, under its implied power to regulate foreign affairs, can strip an American citizen of his citizenship.
Held: Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. Perez v. Brownell, supra, overruled. Pp. 256-268.
(a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a mature and well considered dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 257-261.
(b) The Fourteenth Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . ." completely controls the status of citizenship, and prevents the cancellation of petitioner's citizenship. Pp. 262-268.
361 F.2d 102, reversed.

However, if Canada at the time didn't recognize dual citizenship and she had to voluntarily relinquish US citizenship to enjoy being a Canadian Citizen, then her US citizenship would no longer be valid.

Of course when you contrast Afroyim with Rogers v Bellei, it becomes obvious that the foreign born child of a US citizen is absolutely not a natural born citizen, as that ruling was that such a person was specifically not afforded the same protections as the citizens referred to in Afroyim.
The Court ruled in Bellei that the foreign born child of a US citizen COULD have their citizenship stripped from them, unlike a natural born citizen or even a naturalized immigrant.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

I think I'll go back to jurisprudence, traditional law, and the way things should be. That decision, as well as anchor babies and any dual citizenship needs to be overturned and we should could back to our common sense roots.

In so doing, the Court overruled one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.
...
The impact of Afroyim v. Rusk was narrowed by a later case, Rogers v. Bellei (1971), in which the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment safeguarded citizenship only when a person was born or naturalized in the United States, and that Congress retained authority to regulate the citizenship status of a person who was born outside the United States to an American parent.

Can we get Cruz to vote in Israel? Maybe as an AIPAC publicity stunt..

 

[Jan2017]

US government is"not precluded" from stripping the citizenship of even "a natural born citizen",
as the 1993 E.D.Pa. District Court case of the native Philadelphian turned Nazi
US v. Schiffer 798 F.Supp. 1128 (E.D. Pa. 1992)
US v. Schiffer 836 F.Supp. 1164 (E.D. Pa. 1993)

The Ramos case shows that the foreign born child of a US citizen Mom (born in Mexico)
can also be stripped of any naturalization rights once the the child fails to enter the USA by the 18th birthday
and meet the 5 year residence requirement by age 23 - Ramos-Hernandez was 32 years old and was deported losing that naturalization path.
(Ramos case was in 1977 in Ninth Ct., citation in post below)


US citizenship can be challenged for anyone voting in a foreign election - it is an act of expatriation.

(citations to be edited in)

 

[fedupinmo]

US government is"not precluded" from stripping the citizenship of even "a natural born citizen",
as the 1993 E.D.Pa. District Court case of the native Philadelphian turned Nazi

The Ramos case from Florida in 2001 shows that the foreign born child of a US citizen Mom (born in Mexico)
can also be stripped of any naturalization rights once the the child fails to enter the USA by the 18th birthday
and meet the 5 year residence requirement by age 23 - Ramos-Hernandez was 32 years old and was deported losing that naturalization path.

US citizenship can be challenged for anyone voting in a foreign election - it is an act of expatriation.

(citations to be edited in)

Well, the Afroyim Court did say Congress instead of mentioning the judiciary... but they also recognized the existence of a 14th Amendment right to citizenship. Ramos sounds like an affirmation of Bellei, in not recognizing that 14th Amendment right to citizenship for the foreign born children of US citizens.
BTW, I am not attempting to dilute your point with Zippy, I believe you are spot on in your assessments of Rafael.

 

[Jan2017]

Well, the Afroyim Court did say Congress instead of mentioning the judiciary... but they also recognized the existence of a 14th Amendment right to citizenship. Ramos sounds like an affirmation of Bellei, in not recognizing that 14th Amendment right to citizenship for the foreign born children of US citizens.
BTW, I am not attempting to dilute your point with Zippy, I believe you are spot on in your assessments of Rafael.

Jose Miguel Ramos-hernandez, Petitioner, v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Respondent, 566 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1977)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 566 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1977) Dec. 23, 1977

Petitioner Jose Miguel Ramos-Hernandez (Ramos), who seeks in this proceeding to avoid deportation, was born in Mexico in 1939.
His mother is a native-born American citizen, his father a Mexican national.

However, because only one of his parents is an American citizen, Ramos was required by statute to satisfy a residence requirement in order to retain his American citizenship.

Ramos came to the United States in 1972 or 1973 at the age of thirty-two or thirty-three. Although it is unclear whether the 1952 or 1972 provision is applicable to him, Ramos had no United States residence before age twenty-eight and thus admits he has not satisfied the residence requirement of either statute.

In 1974 the Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings, claiming Ramos to be an alien
who entered the United States illegally and who is therefore deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2).
While conceding that if he is determined to be an alien he is deportable under this statute,
Ramos contends he is an American citizen and thus cannot be deported.

. . . even if Ramos was unaware of the residence requirement his ignorance would not prevent operation of the statute against him.

Both parties place primary reliance on Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 91 S. Ct. 1060, 28 L. Ed. 2d 499 (1971), which upheld the constitutionality of § 1401(b). Bellei is the most recent of several cases dealing with loss of citizenship.

In Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 78 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958), the Supreme Court held that Congress could constitutionally decree loss of citizenship as a consequence of conduct voluntarily entered into (voting in a foreign political election).

 

[H. E. Panqui]

...i had a !great time with some lyin' ted supporters who attended my state republican convention...

...i found that arguing about the 'term of art' 'natural born' wasn't working with many of the foolish lyin' ted suckers...so i started asking them simply, 'isn't ted cruz foreign born' ?...for some reason this question quickly shuts up many of the cruz fools!. .(hint: ..it seems to work best when you tell the cruztards you are 'undecided'...)

...try it on your local cruz cheerleaders face-to-face!..it's a hoot!

 

[Jan2017]

Cruz is listed as a one of the several foreignborn Senators . . .
but the only one claiming only one US parent which got him caught as a dual citizen - trying to be deceptive and have it both ways.

Other foreignborns without any US parent got fully naturalized for 9 years before being seated as a Senator -
or were impeached as Rafael E. Cruz will be.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Cruz is listed as a one of the several foreignborn Senators . . .
but the only one claiming only one US parent which got him caught as a dual citizen - trying to be deceptive and have it both ways.

Other foreignborns without any US parent got fully naturalized for 9 years before being seated as a Senator -
or were impeached as Rafael E. Cruz will be.

Examples?

Current foreign born US Senators:

Michael Bennet- Colorado. His father was ambassador serving overseas- born in India. His grandfather served Roosevelt.

Ted Cruz- Texas. Mother US Citizen. Born in Canada.

Mazie Hirono- Hawaii. Born in Japan to US citizen mother. Also served in House of Representatives.

John McCain- Arizona. Born in Panama Canal Zone to US citizen parents

That's the list. No foreign born US senators without at least one US citizen parent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_born_outside_the_United_States