Ted Cruz: ‘Nothing against Canada …’ (but I’m renouncing Canadian citizenship)

Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz says he will renounce his Canadian citizenship.


 

AUSTIN, Texas – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz said Monday that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship.

The Texas Republican and tea party favourite announced his plans Monday night in a statement. The move comes in the wake of a report by The Dallas Morning News that Cruz holds dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship.

Cruz released his birth certificate amid concerns that being born in Canada could derail a possible presidential run by the tea party firebrand.

The 42-year-old gave a copy of the document to The Dallas Morning News, which posted a picture of it online Monday. It shows Cruz’s birth in Calgary, Alberta, on Dec. 22, 1970, while listing his mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, as having been born in Delaware and his father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, as a native of Cuba.

Cruz’s father was an engineer, and the couple had come to Canada as part of that country’s energy boom — although Cruz would spend most of his formative years in Houston.

Asked if additional copies of the birth certificate would be made available, Cruz spokesman Sean Rushton said several media outlets had made similar requests and that he was working on them.

In a statement issued Monday night, Cruz said “the facts of my birth are straightforward: I was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada. Because my mother was a U.S. citizen, born in Delaware, I was a U.S. citizen by birth. When I was a kid, my Mom told me that I could choose to claim Canadian citizenship if I wanted. I got my U.S. passport in high school.

“Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter,” he added. “Now The Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.”

Cruz was a little-known former Texas solicitor general and veteran of George W. Bush’s presidential campaign when he launched a bid to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Spurred by a wave of grassroots support, Cruz upset mainstream GOP favourite and powerful Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in last year’s Republican primary, then coasted to victory in November.

Since taking office, he has embraced the role of Senate troublemaker, angering Democrats and even some Republicans with his outspokenness. Cruz has most recently joined with other tea party darlings in the Senate and called for partially shutting down the federal government in an attempt to block funding for the White House-backed health care law.

Cruz also has fuelled speculation he could run for the White House by wowing conservative crowds during frequent trips to Iowa, which will open voting for the 2016 GOP presidential primary.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that “No person except a natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president. But Cruz’s office has long maintained that because his mother was an American, Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth.

President Barack Obama, who was born to an American mother and Kenyan father, faced sharp criticism from some conservatives who claimed he wasn’t an American citizen. In 2011, Obama released a copy of his birth certificate confirming his birth in Hawaii.

Cruz is a favourite of many of the same conservative groups who raised “birther” concerns about Obama, however, and questions about his eligibility to become president because he was born in Canada have not caused as much of a stir — at least not yet.

It is legal to hold both U.S. and Canadian citizenship, but the Canadian embassy in Washington won’t say how many people do so, citing privacy concerns.

Asked during a 2012 interview with The Associated Press whether he holds dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship, Cruz wouldn’t answer directly, saying only: “I am a U.S. citizen.”

“I was born in Canada, but I was a citizen at birth because my mother was a citizen,” he said. “I have only ever had one passport and that is a U.S. passport.”


 
Filed under:

Ted Cruz: ‘Nothing against Canada …’ (but I’m renouncing Canadian citizenship)

  1. Sorry, Ted, but the US constitution clearly states that a US President MUST be born on US soil.

    • I will give every penny in my bank account to Tiffany Branton if she can show me where the US constitution says you must be born on US soil.

    • Tiffany, Tiffany, read before you jump. The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born (American) citizen, not to be born in the US.

      Had Obama been born in Kenya, he would still be a natural born American, as his mother was American. Remember, in 2008 he competed against John McCain who was born in Panama, and the Donald did not worry.

      Legal interpretation defines as “natural born” citizen a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.[Wikipedia].

    • FAIL !!!!! I too was born in Canada to US parents. I even spent the first 35 years of my life in Canada but have now spent the last 30 years in the States and by all laws of the country am an American citizen

      • Have you tried to run for president?

    • US Law clearly states, “If one parent was a US citizen at the time of his birth, that parent must have resided in the US for at least 10 years of which 5 years must be above the age of 16.

      • That’s the current law, I believe. It would be
        a) necessary to look at the law at the time of Cruz’s birth, and possibly

        b) if the then current law did not make him a citizen at birth, determine if a retroactive law made him a citizen at birth (yes, that happens).

        Citizenship laws change all the time.

        And to add to the fun, there’s also different treatment depending on whether the parent was the mom or the dad, and whether the kid in question was born in “wedlock”.

  2. Another example of the sheer lunacy and hypocrisy of conservatives, right wingers, and teabaggers. All these guys were yelling and screaming that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (even though he was born in Hawaii) and because of that fact alone, he was ineligible to be President. Where are these birthers now? It’s almost as though they had a different reason for not liking Barack Obama even before he became President.. Hmm I wonder what it is… How is Barack Obama different than 99% of the Republican Party and the old white men who vote for them…

    • You’re too connected to the mainstream media to make a rational statement.

      • And you’re too connected to your posterior to form any kind of intelligent rebuttal.

    • Let’s see, Cruz. Hmmmm, I can just see the Teabaggers jumping on that foreign-born, Mexican sounding, well-educated bandwagon. Cruz is going to have to really amp up the crazy if he hopes to get this lot on board. Besides, they have their own, home-grown idiot, Rand Paul, to appeal to all their prejudices, fears and ignorant pipe dreams. Cruz hasn’t a chance, even if he gets the Louie Gohmert-wing endorsement.

    • “It’s almost as though they had a different reason for not liking Barack Obama even before he became President”

      Yes, because he’s an incompetent, he’s a socialist, he’s in the process of destroying the economy, and he’s never accomplished anything other than getting himself elected.

      But there’s always racist bigots like you around to ignore the obvious and show your racist colours.

      • Your posts are always so autobiographical – keep them coming!

  3. This guy is a U.S. senator who may be running for Pres. and he has to be told by a newspaper that he has dual citizenship ?

    • As a tea bag senator, your beat is looking into other people’s business, not your own,

      • Snap!

    • Wait until Cruz finds out his Cuban father supported Castro (until he found out he was a Communist, apparently). Never thought I’d say it – after the last time -but I can’t wait for the Repub primaries.

  4. It seems to me that to solve this problem the United States Supreme Court should rule on what “A natural born citizen” means. This was an issue even when Mitt Romney’s father George Romney ran for President, having been born in Mexico. John McCain was actually born in the Panama Canal Zone which I believe at the time was considered US territory.

  5. Whew, what a relief to all of us in Canada.

  6. Wonderful!

    That raises the IQ of BOTH countries!

  7. No offense taken Ted, I’m just thankful your lunatic self isn’t involved in Canadian politics. Happy teabagging!

  8. I find this interesting and concerning, as a Canadian, and as the father of four children who are dual “natural-born” citizens of Canada and the US, who live in the US, and as a conservative. Should my children look at this as a reason to be ashamed of their heritage? I was always under the impression that in America, you should not be ashamed of where you come from, where you were born. Certainly being born in Canada of all places should hardly be viewed as a disadvantage, but evidently, to some political ideologies, it is. I’m reminded of another political party, from another nation, early in the 20th century, where so many scrambled to identify with being of a pure genetic lineage, in order to secure the most benefits of citizenship. Since America helped defeat this philosophy I need not point out certain similarities to the ideology of the National Socialist party of Germany.

    • Cruz has got nothing against Canada, nothing to do with his political ideology (what’s with the weird comparison to Nazism?), either. But if he’s gong to run for president, it’d be pretty unprecedented. Forestalls eligibility questions if he renounces.

    • If your going to compare the current American political system with Nazi Germany, can we respectful ask you to renounce your Canadian citizenship as well.

      • Sadly no. Let me point out a couple of things here. Much like the Nazis used propaganda of the “dirty Jew” to incite fear and hatred in the general populace of Germany, can not the same be said of Muslims in western culture today? And the use of tragic incidents initiated by a militant minority as reasoning to step up surveillance of the state’s own citizens? While I’m sure you are aware of the impact 9/11 has had on our views of Islamic extremists, perhaps you are ignorant of how the Nazis used the assassination of a diplomat, Ernst von Rath, by a Jew as a prelude to Kristallnacht? Perhaps you are one of those people who feels that those who do not share your own views and opinions should not be part of your society? Perhaps you would prefer to be part of a society that is completely homogenous in composition, where free thought and questioning our “leaders” is outlawed or, dare I say, reason to remove citizenship?

      • And another note, Jim, Mr. Cruz appears to be more aligned with the smaller Tea Party segment of the Republican party, a group that seems more preoccupied with one’s place of birth than one’s accomplishments. Is he Canadian or American? Are you Aryan or Jew? Those examples are extreme, but the similarities are there. The Tea Party does espouse a much more right-wing ideology than the more mainstream Republicans. I don’t suppose you view image as more important than integrity?

        • “a group that seems more preoccupied with one’s place of birth than one’s accomplishments”

          That’s a lying smear. You’re a bigot.

        • What are you rambling about. You’re the one comparing the American political system to the Nazi’s. You’re the one concerned with “natural-born” status. If you took the time to read my post you could see I didn’t comment on any of the points you made.

          Canada would appreciate it if you stayed in the USA.

  9. Good riddence

  10. He was not born in the US how does that make him American by birth?

    • You’re an idiot.

  11. Cruz says, “but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator”. Sorry, but having been born in Calgary makes you a Canadian by birth. You are an American because your mother, being an American followed the procedure to make sure you were registered as an American, thus giving you dual citizenship. However, like it or not you were born a Canadian. Whether you renounce that citizenship or not will not alter the fact that you were born Canadian, whether you remain Canadian or not will not alter that fact.

    • Being born to an American parent makes you American by birth. Why are there so many stupid people on this post? There is no such thing as being “registered” as an American or a Canadian. You either are, or you aren’t. There is no “register”.

  12. A Tea Party type politician from Calgary left Canada and gave up his citizenship. Any chance more might?

    • We certainly don’t want to discourage this kind of thing.

    • Feel free to leave.

  13. I’m sorry Senator Cruz, but you fail the Tea Bagger Sniff Test. You have spent time outside of the USA, possibly (though not likely) peripherally learning about other cultures. True Tea Baggers must eschew all points of contact with non-Tea Bagger culture. Travel to foreign lands is only allowed within the compounds of an isolated, guarded, and gated resort, or on an approved cruise ship. Spending four years in Calgary, where you learned your first (foreign!) words, is almost as bad as spending a summer in Portland, Oregon. Or three days in California/New York City. Quickly, say the word you see here: COLOUR. Aha! You are no longer a valid Tea Bagger. Please return your non-ironic t-shirt as you exit the premises.

    • You’re just another bigot.

      • no u

  14. Now if only a certain NDP Opposition Leader would take the hint. Good on Mr. Cruz. It is fine being a dual citizen if you are an ordinary person on the street. The minute you assume a leadership role in the country, you can’t have divided loyalties. There are many times I have wondered if Mr. Mulcair is actually acting on the best interests of Canada or the EU.

    • hahaha! Funny stuff!

      • I’m glad you find it hilarious. If you think things can’t go all pear shaped between Canada and France, you haven’t been around very long. They also have a couple of islands in the St. Lawrence that as colonial possessions should have been given back to Canada.

        • Back to Canada? They never belonged to Canada.

          • They belong to the geological land mass known as Canada. If Spain is pressuring the UK to give back Gibralter which was never part of Spain but part of the Kingdom of Castile, and Argentina is pressuring the UK to give back the Falklands which were never part of Argentina either but Spanish colonial possessions long ceded to the UK, then why not St. Pierre and Miquelon?

          • The invalid and laughable claims of Spain and Argentina are no reason for Canada to make similarly invalid and laughable claims.

          • Well exactly but that was my point. Just because two countries have gotten along for a number of decades doesn’t mean something stupid can’t flare up.

          • Wow. I blame the 1812 re-enactment commercials – they’ve bred paranoia in some of Harper’s faithful. Maybe that was their real purpose.

          • ” the geological land mass known as Canada”

            There is no geological land mass known as Canada. Canada is a geographic and political entity that has nothing to do with geology.

        • No, I find it hilarious that you think what you think. Dual citizens are not inherently disloyal, no matter what the Conservative Base thinks.

          • I beg to differ. You never know which way a dual citizen will turn until the decisive moment comes.

          • You never know which way ANYONE will ‘turn’ until the decisive moment comes…but unless you believe we have ‘sleeper’ PMs [for gawd knows what regime]….kill the music from Jaws please.

          • Harper has been described as a sleeper but this gives it a whole new meaning.

          • LOL

          • Maybe his mother snuck across the border to deliver him. Time to demand he produce his birth and citizen records!

          • Yup….and the original long forms….none of this short stuff!

        • What are you thinking of – a cheese war if the trade deal goes south?

    • I dare CPC MPs to be as vocal on this issue as possible.

      • Well, here’s one way to go about it:

        CPC MP to Mulcair: “Mr Mulcair, if your French citizenship is meaningless to you and just a citizenship of convenience as you have implied in the past, then please explicitly confirm this and explain what harm there is in giving it up and putting this distraction to rest for all time? If indeed your French citizenship is more than just a citizenship of convenience, can you explain the meaning of it to you and also explain why Canadians should not be concerned about the possibility of divided loyalties?”

        If Mulcair says his French citizenship is meaningless to him but he’ll keep it anyway, then he risks pissing France off; which is probably not something he would want to do given Quebec’s close relationship with France. If it’s not meaningless, then he risks pissing off at least some Canadians.

        Citizenship is a funny thing: some people treat it like a pair of shoes, to change at will depending on mood and circumstance; to others it’s a very precious commodity. Add to that the often byzantine laws that can go into determining just who is or is not a citizen and when he/she became a citizen, and you have a very interesting topic of discussion.

        • if your argument is more than eight words it won’t work with CPC voters.

          “It won’t affect my work shame on you for suggesting it will” should be sufficient.

          • Ah, but it wouldn’t be CPC voters it would be meant for (the hardcore CPC base votes CPC regardless). It would be for people like veterans who exist in all parties and have strong notions of what citizenship and patriotism mean.

            And if that was meant to be Mulcair’s response, it would be a non-answer to some very basic questions and would easily result in a followup, e.g., “Mr Mulcair, can you please answer the question: is your French citizenship meaningless to you or not?”

          • Nope. if you’re that vile, you’re CPc material. Other voters wont’ fall for it.

          • Please explain why asking Mulcair to explain what his French citizenship means to him is vile. It seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me.

          • I am sorry you feel this way. esp. with the answers already provided in this discussion. i thank you for your time and civil responses in this matter but it is unlikely we will achieve anything further going forward.

          • Having just read the CBC article, Mr. Mulcair is trying to deflect by claiming that somehow being a dual citizen enriches the multicultural experience. Nobody is asking ordinary dual citizens to give up their dual citizenship. We are asking that the Leader of the Opposition do so. Quite a different matter because being a French citizen also means he is a citizen of the EU.

          • It was asked and answered long time ago.

          • Can you point me to the exact question and response? I am curious.

            Would also like to see if anyone asked him if France imposes any of the same burdensome and potentially troublesome type of responsibilities that the US imposes on its expats.

          • On the one hand, he’s proud to have both French and Canadian citizenship. On the other hand, he obtained French citizenship as a result of an airport incident in Spain. The former sounds like his French citizenship has real meaning to him. The latter sounds like it’s a citizenship of convenience. Not sure what to make of that.

            At any rate, given that France isn’t far behind the US when it comes to the issue of nationalism, would still be interested in knowing if France imposes any of the type of potentially troublesome type of responsibilities on its expat citizens that the US does.

          • Why make anything of it? It’s irrelevant.

          • If the *leader* of a country has more than one citizenship, then it is arguably relevant how he or she views his/her other citizenship. And I say this as someone with more than one citizenship and whose family members on one side of the family almost all have more than one citizenship.

            I’d also point to Layton, who said that it was preferable that the leader have only Canadian citizenship. And to Dion, who gave up his French citizenship due to becoming leader of the LPC. They obviously considered dual status relevant.

          • Well Jim….we’ve had PMs with dual citizenship before. It’s irrelevant. We are no longer in the middle ages.

            Dion did not give up his citizenship….and the former GG has retrieved hers

          • My mistake, Dion only said he would give it up to become PM. So my details are wrong, but the point stands; Dion thought it was relevant. So Layton and Dion both were, according to your reasoning, living in the middle ages. And, I suppose, so was the GG for renouncing her French citizenship.

            Citizenship means different things to different people. Some take it, and the responsibilities that come with it, very seriously. Others view it as an accessory. So, it’s not unreasonable to want to know how the person that wants to lead the country views his other citizenship.

          • Nobody thought it was relevant….it was purely political ‘gotcha’ crap. Many Con MPs were dual citizens at the time.

            The Middle Ages involved feudalism….and loyalty was vital to a king and army…..and therefore sacred.

            We have outdated Middle Agers….indeed Dark Agers…hanging around in the PMO.

            We are turning into global citizens….many people already have several….something new for you to worry about. LOL

          • You can’t say nobody thought it was relevant when Dion, Layton, and the former GG obviously did. And nobody could accuse Dion and Layton of being CPC MPs.

            At any rate, so you’re saying that as global citizens there should be no expectation of loyalty and/or responsibilities to any country? Is that correct?

            [BTW, like I said, I’ve lived with the notion of dual citizenship in one form or another my entire life – I’ve seen all attitudes to it first hand – it’s nothing new]

          • Jim you know very well they were responding to Con ‘gotcha’ political crap….nothing more.

            We are not at war. We are not going to be at war. And no PM would endanger his voter status by favoring some other country over the one he’s head of in trade talks or something. That’s absurd.

            The world is globalizing….countries will become like provinces are now….and ‘loyalty’ will be to humanity, to the species, to Earth….not one teeny section of geography.

            Multiple loyalties have always been with us….you’re loyal to your community/town/city , your province, your country, it’s allies…..maybe to Rotary, the ‘old country’, probably to a church…certainly family…friends….all that.

            And something I’ve noticed about those who worry about dual citizenship….It doesn’t matter to them if it’s ‘Canadian’ and American….Canadian and British…..Canadian and Israeli etc….it only matters if it’s Canadian and French…..interesting.

          • A dual Canada-US PM would be of far more potential concern than a dual Canada-Whatever PM due to the known responsibilities the US imposes on its expat citizens. Search for my post that uses the term “FBAR”.

          • Several Con MPs were dual US/Canadian….they all had potential to be leader. No one said a word.

            Technically the US doesn’t allow dual citizens….so their govt regards them all as Americans….nothing else.

          • That’s because the enforcement of FBAR requirements is relatively new. The legislation has been around for decades, it’s only since the UBS kerfuffle that it’s actually being enforced.

            And it is irrelevant whether the US allows dual citizenship or not (it tolerates it BTW). The fact is that the US imposes US laws on its expat citizens. And as far as the US is concerned a dual Canada-US PM would be a US citizen and thus theoretically subject to its reporting laws.

            BTW, if by chance you find this interesting, get ready for the fun when Canada buckles to US pressure and signs a FATCA IGA. Google ‘FATCA “Peter Hogg”‘ for a taste of things to come.

          • The US does a lot of things….but unless they invade, don’t sit up nights worrying about it. They are a crashing empire, and there will be much flailing about yet.

            Yes, FATCA is well known…even Wente wrote about it.

            Swiss banks have also been forced into coughing up names….there are no more secret accounts….tax havens have been nailed as well.

            It’s all part of globalization….and things will be chaotic and difficult for quite some time before it smoothes out.

          • A FATCA IGA would be a one-sided agreement that would force Canadian financial institutions or the Canadian government to report the local, Canadian financial account info of Canadian citizens and Canadian permanent residents who are also US citizens to the US government. These are not offshore accounts a la Swiss banks. These are the local accounts of people who live in Canada and call Canada home. These people are not tax evaders with secret offshore accounts, they’re your law abiding neighbours who pay their Canadian taxes just as you do. Yet a FATCA IGA would have Canada identify them and treat them in this “special” manner.

            A FATCA IGA would be a signficant impingement on Canada’s soveriegnty and may even be unconstitutional. Canada would also bear significant costs in complying with FATCA. And for this, Canada would get nothing in return, as FATCA IGAs do not mandate reciprocity and there’s virtually no chance the US Congress would authorize reciprocity in the future.

            There is no need to invade Canada, if Canada is unwilling to defend its sovereignty.
            A Canada with spine would:
            a) refuse to forward to the US any info on Canadian citizens and permanent residents who reside in Canada.
            b) insist on reciprocity

            The elder Trudeau would have told the US to go fuddle-duddle itself unless those conditions were met. We’ll see if the younger Trudeau, and Harper, and Mulcair are up to the task.

          • Jim….you need a reality check.

            Selling oil trumps everything….where have you been the last 7 years??

            PS…70% of our trade is with the US….we aren’t about to annoy them

          • I expect Harper to possibly think like that. I didn’t expect you to.

            If FATCA in its current incarnation is implemented in Canada, there will eventuially be one or more suits. One will likely go to the Supreme Court, given Peter Hogg’s opinion. If the best defence that can be mustered is that we don’t want to annoy the US, then I can’t wait to grab my popcorn.

          • Canada will quietly work out a deal with the US like everyone else, and there’ll be no need for popcorn.

            That’s reality Jim…my personal views have nothing to do with it.

          • If the deal is like every other signed IGA to date, then there will be popcorn galore.

            If you have reason to believe that the deal would be a modified IGA that does not violate the Canadian Constitution, then you know far more than the general public.

          • And the US cares how much about our constitution?

            Or our supreme court….?

            They want favours….we want favours….we trade favours.

          • The US doesn’t give a rat’s behind about our Constitution.

            But our courts do, which is all that matters.

            The government can make deals until the cows come home. If those deals violate the Constitution, then there will be court action. How could there not be?

          • You have a very idealistic view of the world Jim.

            The Supreme court…assuming it ever gets that far which is highly unlikely….can simply say it’s a political matter, or just refuse to rule. They often do that. ‘Outside their jurisdiction’ is another good one.

            Peter Hogg counts for nada in the grand scheme of things.

          • A violation of section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms may be many things, but outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not one of them.

          • You are seeing a violation no one else is

          • Constitutional expert Peter Hogg sees it.

          • Put 4 Canadians in a room, and you’ll get 5 opinions.

          • Irrelevant. Can you cite Constitutional experts who disagree with Constitutional expert Peter Hogg’s position.

          • Not interested, so I haven’t looked.

          • You are seeing a violation no one else is.

          • Veterans – some of which came home with war brides – sounds like a plan.

        • Harper’s looking for a new communications guy – I think you might have a shot. Of course you’ll have to dumb it down (even more) – words like byzantine should be avoided.

          • I think little more of Harper than you do.

    • Funny, I sometimes wonder about Harper’s loyalties and not because of his citizenship.

      • Yes indeed…..if I suspected any PMs loyalty, it would be Harper’s considering all the ‘disloyal’ things he’s said

  15. This is perfectly reasonable. I would expect anyone running for PM in Canada to give up any extraneous citizenship they have as well. When you’re running to lead your country, it’s pretty important that there by no question of divided loyalties. Giving up foreign citizenship – if only as a symbolic gesture – would be the least one could do.

    • Might want to get a dictionary and look up the word “important”. It does not mean trivial symbolic gesture, as you seem to think.

      • The US is one country that imposes rather strict financial accountability on its citizens. US people must report their “foreign” (*) finacial accounts to the US government on annual basis (google “FBAR”); penalties for not doing this can be massive. Included in this are accounts which may not be actually theirs, but for which they have signing authority. And, since, the US has citizenship based taxation, being resident of a foreign country does not relieve one of this responsibility. So, in theory, a dual Canada-US PM would be reporting to the US government on all government accounts that he/she has signing authority on. The issue with this should be fairly obvious.

        So, this would be an example of where holding dual citizenship has some very real and negative connotations for the leader of a country. I have no idea what responsibilities France imposes on its citizens (or intends to impose, given the heighted concern about “offshore” tax evaders), but the concern is not something one can just arm-wave away without first looking into.

        Bottom line is that with citizenship comes responsibilty. The only question is how much responsibility.

        (*) Note that to the US government a “foreign” account is any account not in the US – it doesn’t matter if it’s the citizen’s ordinary, everyday, bank account in the country in which he resides.

      • I’d also add that renouncing a citizenship is only a trivial symbolic gesture if the citizenship in question has no real meaning to the person holding it. Without knowing what the person thinks about his/her citizenship, it’s not possible to say whether giving it up would be a virtually meaningless act to them.

        • “There are many aspects of my life which won’t affect my work. If I was black or jewish my opponent would never be doing this. I won’t deal with gotcha hypotheticals and will maintain my focus on the issues of the day while the other side keeps inventing slurs to distract the populace. Thank you for your question”

          if that isn’t the end of story, we’re even worse off as a society then I have suspected.

          • Being the citizen of a country and thus having at least nominal responsibilities to it are very different things from being black or Jewish. One would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario where being black or Jewish would affect a PM’s work. OTOH, I provided a real life example on how being a dual Canada-US citizen would be, at least theoretically, an issue for a PM.

          • I’m sure one could invent a half-assed hypothetical. And one could easily renounce their religion – why, aren’t you scared a catholic might put the pope’s interests ahead of the voters?

            If I a guy says “I will put my responsibilities as prime minister first” we should, as Canadians, believe him unless we have real reason not to. That’s a REAL reason.

          • Yes, and we’ve had our PMs threatened by the Vatican for doing their job….their loyalty has never been questioned.

          • If the PM was Jewish, he’d automatically have dual citizenship with Israel

            How would that affect his loyalties in the ME?

      • LIke I said, it is the very least one could do. It may or may not have larger consequences. And sometimes, symbolism and appearances, such as removing the appearance of a conflict of interest or divided loyalties, are important.

  16. Bye bye Ted, don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

  17. Boy, good thing he wasn’t black eh?

  18. Born in Kalgari. An oil city. Hah! Another one o’ them Eye-racky places…like Kenya. No furriners in the White House!

  19. And in the process he’ll raise the IQ of two countries!

  20. You can’t be President. But I’d suggest you get rid of your Canadian ties anyway. No loss up here.

  21. The natural born. Hope it was a natural birth and not a knife job.

    In the determination of ‘natural born’ he would need to have been born in the USA or one of its bases or Embassies. No matter how American Calgary is; it is not American.

  22. So If I am born a female…but renounce that because….. well really I am a male because my dad is….I can marry whoever I want in Texas?

  23. Mr Cruz’s ignorance and presumptuousness is mind-boggling but unfortunately typical of how many Americans think. First of all he’s an American “at birth” and a Canadian “by birth”. Secondly he assumes that somehow his American citizenship negated his Canadian. To renounce his Canadian he can make an online payment of $100 to the Canadian government and maybe have to see a Canadian citizenship judge at his local Canadian consulate. By contrast, in order to renounce US citizenship (even if you were born in Canada) Americans throughout the world must file at least 5 years worth of US tax returns, pay all back taxes and penalties owed, make at least one visit to a US consulate where they pay a fee of $450, and in many cases pay a hefty exit tax. The US should call themselves “land of the fee” for it certainly isn’t free with the walls it’s erected around itself.

  24. Sen. Cruz, among other things, is a strong opponent of universal healthcare. When he renounces his Canadian citizenship will he be paying back the Canadian taxpayer for the cost of his birth at a Canadian hospital?

    • I think that’s his parents responsibility.

  25. The real question is: Is his truck too much v-hicle for him?

  26. A natural born citizen is one who at birth has both parents holding citizenship. So, if only his mother was a USA citizen but not his father, at the time of his birth, then he is not a natural born citizen. But then, with the “current occupant”, Obama (like, who knows where he was born?) such concerns seemed to have been tossed aside.

    • Where does this definition of “natural born citizen” come from?

    • The truthers burnt themselves out trying to prove he was born in Africa. Had there been a brain amongst they might have tried this tact.

    • “A natural born citizen is one who at birth has both parents holding citizenship”

      False.