For the record, Rogers v Bellei is now moot and wouldn’t be used as precedent.
From Wikipedia: “The statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.”
If Senator Cruz decides to run, I am certain there will be lawsuits challenging his eligibility like there were for Obama and McCain. The courts will decide the issue.
Since Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, the statement quoted by Ray76 had no bearing on the holding in that appeal and it is therefore not precedential.
As of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
“a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
additionally: “Children born overseas to married parents
The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents.
If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen at birth if either of the parents has ever had a residence in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen at birth if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child’s birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen at birth if the U.S. citizen parent has been “physically present” in the U.S. before the child’s birth for a total period of at least five years, and
at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent’s fourteenth birthday.— the last example is Senator Cruz’s situation.
Because Congress changed the requirements for the naturalized at birth citizen, (Aldo Mario Bellei) they changed the requirements for "natural born citizen"? I thought you have previously said congress doesn't have the power to unilaterally redefine that term?
You should make up your mind.
If Senator Cruz decides to run, I am certain there will be lawsuits challenging his eligibility like there were for Obama and McCain. The courts will decide the issue.
They may decide the "legal" issue, but they certainly cannot force voters into going along with whatever they say. If sufficient court challenges cause people to lose faith in his eligibility, he may win the court battle but lose the election.
Since Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, the statement quoted by Ray76 had no bearing on the holding in that appeal and it is therefore not precedential.
You can either argue that the Wong court knows what it's talking about or you can argue that it doesn't. You cannot assert that it is right about this one thing it says, but wrong about this other thing it says.
So now you can go ahead and do your little legaleeze blarney dance while you try to square that circle.
So which is it, is the Wong court right or wrong? They can't be both.