I find myself rather bemused by the sentiments behind this story, describing how Senator Cruz has renounced his Canadian citizenship.

Senator Cruz's aide Catherine Frazier said: "Being a US senator representing Texas, it makes sense he should be only an American citizen". How exactly does it "make sense"? Is there a suggestion that, while acting as a US senator, he cannot be trusted to have appropriate priorities? If that is so, renouncing his Canadian citizenship has hardly removed all his sympathies and ties to Canada. It has not changed the fact that he was born there, and was possibly educated there and has family and friends there. Did he, as part of the renunciation of his second citizenship, have the Canadian parts of his memory excised: does he now say "about", rather than "aboot"?

The American press, and by implication the American public, does seem to be particularly obsessed with "foreigners" holding political office: it is impossible for anyone not born a US citizen to be president (bad luck, Arnold Schwarzenegger). I find it odd that the USA, the champion of democracy and equal rights (for people of different religions, ethnicity, political beliefs, sexual orientation, etc.), is so attached to policies about its politicians which are, essentially, racist.

In the modern world, more and more people are geographically mobile, and live and work in countries other than their land of birth and citizenship. Time to change the rules and public expectations on this issue. The issue is not really any different than someone holding more than one job at a time: you require (often in a contract) that they deal professionally with any conflicts of interest that arise. If you can't trust someone to put the country where they hold political office first in the exercise of that office, then I have a radical idea: don't elect them in the first place!