Photo Credit: APCanada-born U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has given up his citizenship from his birth country, making good on a promise from last summer.
Spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said the Tea Party favorite formally gave up his citizenship May 14. He received official confirmation of the action at his Houston home Tuesday.
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo Credit: Forbes America is a great land and lures immigrants worldwide, yet record numbers of U.S. citizens and permanent residents are giving up their citizenship or residency. For all the immigrant arrivals the trickle the other direction is increasing. The number is still small, with the “published” expatriates for the quarter 630 for the last quarter of 2013.
That brings the total number to 2,999 for all of 2013. The previous record high for a year was 1,781 set in 2011. It’s a 221% increase over the 932 who left in 2012. You can call it a shaming or a public record, but the Treasury Department is required to publish a quarterly list of Americans who renounced their U.S. Citizenship or terminated their long-term U.S. residency. The public outing puts Americans on notice who relinquished their rights.
Those seem like tiny numbers, yet the total thus far for 2013 is 2,369. See Number of Taxpayers Who Renounced U.S. Citizenship Skyrockets to All-Time Record High, quoting Andrew Mitchel. Under U.S. tax law, it is not relevant why someone expatriates. Whether the expatriation was motivated by tax avoidance or something else used to matter, but the law was changed in 2004.
Since then, the tax and other consequences do not depend on why one leaves. Yet after Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin departed permanently for Singapore with his Facebook IPO riches, there was an angry backlash. Mr. Saverin’s post-Facebook fly-away prompted such outrage that Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey introduced a bill to double the exit tax to 30% for anyone leaving the U.S. for tax reasons.
So far, that bill remains unpassed. Meantime, are people following Tina Turner’s lead? No, and not Eduardo Saverin’s either. Most expatriations are probably motivated primarily by factors such as family and convenience. Many people like Ms. Turner have built a life somewhere else and may not plan to need a U.S. passport.
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo Credit: mrsdkrebsFew Americans have ever thought about giving up their U.S. citizenship, but nearly half think U.S. citizens should be able to be citizens of more than one country.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only nine percent (9%) of U.S. citizens have considered giving up their American citizenship. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Perhaps in part that’s because 93% consider it at least somewhat important to be a U.S. citizen, including 79% who think it is Very Important.
But 45% believe U.S. citizens also should be allowed to be citizens of other countries. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree, while 19% are not sure.
However, in the context of immigration reform, 54% of likely U.S. voters said in March found that potential U.S. citizens should not be allowed to maintain dual citizenship.
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo Credit: AP
Less than 24 hours after the Dallas Morning News reported that he likely maintains dual citizenship to the U.S. and Canada, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced Monday evening that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship.
“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 said in a statement.
Several legal experts apparently determined that Cruz remains a Canadian citizen because his mother gave birth to him in the country and he never renounced it…
Read more from this story HERE.
________________________________________________________
Photo Credit: Dallas News
By Todd Gillman.
Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born.
Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say.
That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. On a lunch break from the U.S. Senate, he could head to the nearby embassy — the one flying a bright red maple leaf flag — pull out his Calgary, Alberta, birth certificate and obtain a passport.
“He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section.
The circumstances of Cruz’s birth have fueled a simmering debate over his eligibility to run for president. Knowingly or not, dual citizenship is an apparent if inconvenient truth for the tea party firebrand, who shows every sign he’s angling for the White House.
Read more from this story HERE.
On the eve of his military trial, accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan released seven pages of handwritten and typed documents to Fox News in which he appears to renounce his U.S. citizenship, abandons his military oath as a commissioned officer, and explains his relationship with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki — the first American targeted for death by the CIA.
Most of the documents also include the acronym “SoA,” which is considered shorthand for “Soldier of Allah.” Hasan’s business card, also bearing “SoA,” was found in his Texas apartment after the shooting…
The documents may help illuminate Hasan’s state of mind and could challenge the Defense Department’s attempt to deal with the attack in the context of “workplace violence.”
Read more from this story HERE.
House Republicans insisted Sunday that they plan to change key elements of the Senate-passed immigration bill, signaling a protracted and rocky battle ahead despite one Democrat’s pronouncement that in the end the House will cave and pass the Senate bill anyway.
Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is playing a major role in the chamber’s consideration of immigration policy, on Sunday addressed what is perhaps at the heart of the impasse.
He said the House, which is drafting its own plan, cannot agree to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Rather, he wants a “pathway to legalization” — in other words, allow some illegal immigrants a shot at a green card, but not full-fledged citizenship.
The pathway to citizenship, though, is a cornerstone of the Senate-passed bill, and any Democrat-backed plan. Increased border security, better enforcement of businesses and an expansion of the legal immigration system make up the rest of the bill.
Putting the issue in stark terms, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told “Fox News Sunday” that if Republicans strip the pathway to citizenship, “no Democrat” would support it.
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo Credit: David McNew
First, some of our supposed liberty-minded allies in the Congress are embracing the pending amnesty bill, suggesting that it is the only way forward for the Republican Party. They maintain that we must show genuine empathy for Hispanics, or we will lose them as a voting bloc forever to the Democrats.
The reality is that many of these “allies” are simply shilling for multinational corporatist interests that are looking to ensure a long term low-cost labor pool, all on the backs of American workers who will suffer lower and lower wages as a result.
Many of these “allies” were the same ones who, in 2010 and 2012, counted on our votes and campaign contributions, promising no amnesty, no reward for illegal aliens. Now that they’re in power, the Ruling Class has infected or compromised them, making them no better than the RINO’s they replaced.
Why? Perhaps their true intent is to continue to destroy the America our Founders died for, one based on states’ rights and individual liberties, all guaranteed under the Constitution. These are not ideals generally embraced by those who snuck across the border for work or benefits.
As Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America has recently observed, making such individuals citizens will hasten the demise of the Second Amendment, a concept wholly foreign to many illegals who came here not for constitutional freedoms, but for the dollar.
I utterly reject the idea that we must find a pathway to citizenship for the millions that are in the United States illegally. The argument that we have de facto amnesty already and that we might as well give citizenship away to illegals is repugnant to the millions that are waiting for citizenship the right way.
An example of this is my son-in-law who is a Mexican citizen. Rather than jumping the border and to the front of the line, he’s working hard to achieve citizenship through the proper channels. Why should we be bending over backward to reward lawbreakers while continuing to frustrate those who are trying to abide by our laws and become citizens the right way?
Why is it that people think we have to give citizenship to people that are in our country illegally? This senseless, globalist-inspired approach should be rejected.
What does rejecting amnesty leave us with? Mass deportation? Of course not. The compromise answer is to give the illegals what they came here for: permission to work. Grant work visas but NOT citizenship just because they’ve been here illegally for years.
So don’t buy off on the mantra adopted by many conservatives that granting citizenship is the only answer to long-time illegal residents. That approach will only lead to another wave of illegals in the future, just as the Reagan-era amnesty has created the current predicament. Rewarding lawbreaking just encourages more of the same.
The Senate will have a vote on the Gang of 8 Amnesty Bill on Monday. Remember, whether false promises of border security are made or not, citizenship for illegals is NOT the answer. And anything other than amnesty will not be accepted by the Ruling Class. In short, there is no fix to the Amnesty Bill. The grassroots must kill it, just like in 2007. Call your Senators at (202) 224-3121, now!
Photo Credit: AP
Rubio, who won that 2010 election, is now the leading Republican in the U.S. Congress pushing for illegal aliens to be given the earned path to citizenship that he himself insisted was “code for amnesty” only three years ago.
Rubio’s declaration that to allow illegal aliens to stay in the United States and get on a pathway to citizenship was in fact amnesty came in an Oct. 24, 2010 debate hosted by CNN’s Candy Crowley and Adam Smith of the St. Petersburg Times.
“So, your plan is that you’re going to close the borders, get the electronic system, fix the legal system, and then do what?” Crowley asked Rubio in that debate.
“And then you’ll have a legal immigration system that works,” said Rubio. “And you’ll have people in this country that are without documents that will be able to return to the, will be able to leave this country, return to their homeland, and try to re-enter through our system that now functions, a system that makes sense.”
Read more from this story HERE.
Photo Credit: Yana Paskova
The justices said Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship law runs afoul of a federal statute that sets registration requirements. The 7-2 ruling limits the role played by the states in national elections and raises questions about similar laws in three other states — Alabama, Georgia and Kansas.
A U.S. appeals court had invalidated the Arizona law, pointing to a 1993 federal statute that says states must “accept and use” a standard registration document known as the federal form. That form instructs prospective voters to swear that they are citizens, under penalty of perjury…
The high court case didn’t directly involve allegations of racial or ethnic discrimination, though civil-rights groups pressed those contentions earlier in the litigation. The dispute presented legal issues different from those in the voter-identification battles that garnered headlines before last year’s election.
Under Arizona’s law, those seeking to register could prove citizenship by presenting copies of a driver’s license or state-issued identification. The state also would accept a birth certificate, a passport or naturalization papers. Arizona voters approved the measure in 2004.
Read more from this story HERE.
Experts can’t always predict exactly how public policy will affect the nation, despite our best efforts. But when it comes to immigration policy, we have tried many of the types of reforms advocated by today’s Gang of Eight—so we should consider the effects these reforms had in the past.
In the mid-’80s, many Members of Congress advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and as his attorney general, I supported his decision.
The path to citizenship was not automatic. Immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam, and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.
This should sound familiar, as it’s quite close to the path and provisions set forth by the Gang of Eight.
Today they call it a “roadmap to citizenship.” Ronald Reagan called it “amnesty.” And he was right.
The 1986 reform did not solve our immigration problem—in fact, the population of illegal immigrants has nearly quadrupled since that “comprehensive” bill.
Why didn’t it work? Well, one reason is that everything else the 1986 bill promised—from border security to law enforcement—was to come later. It never did. Only amnesty prevailed, and that encouraged more illegal immigration.
Read more from this story HERE.
