So this looks like something that would have to go to court because they would have to prove that they stopped doing citizen like things in Canada like voting. Otherwise, Rand was right there are lots of legal arguments that can and will be contested in court (the democrats aren't going to give the seat to the republicans).
So here is the original meaning, that being said here is the arguments against it.
A natural born citizen cannot be a foreigner. Foreigners are not citizens. A natural born citizen cannot be a person who was naturalized. Those people are not born citizens; they’re born aliens. Most important for the purposes of the Cruz question, a natural born citizen cannot be someone whose birth entitled him to citizenship because of a statute—in this case a statute that confers citizenship on a person born abroad to an American parent. In the 18th century, as now, the word natural meant “in the regular course of things.” Then, as now, almost all Americans obtained citizenship by birth in this country, not by birth to Americans abroad. The natural way to obtain citizenship, then, was (and is) by being born in this country. Because Cruz was not “natural born”—not born in the United States—he is ineligible for the presidency, under the most plausible interpretation of the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_v._Terrazas (1980)
This case argues that they would of had to of renounced their citizenship, voting is analogous to citizenship, and there are claims that they registered to vote.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us