A statutory naturalized citizen of the United States “at birth” is not the same as a common law “natural born citizen” “by birth. Simply stated, the definition of a natural born citizen comes from the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett (1875) (positively cited and quoted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). That definition is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. In contradistinction, the definition of a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” comes from the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Acts of Congress, depending on one’s birth circumstances. With respect to Mr. Obama, assuming he was born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and non-U.S. citizen father, it comes from the Fourteenth Amendment. Regarding Senator Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father, it comes from 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), a naturalization Act of Congress. Hence, neither Obama nor Cruz satisfy the constitutional common law definition of a natural born citizen. Rather, they are made “citizens” of the United States “at birth” by positive law which did not exist at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and which did not repeal or amend the original common law definition of a natural born citizen. They are therefore not natural born citizens.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Well, counselor, there’s an immigration judge up-thread who disagrees with you.