Oh well, one more liar on the pile.
Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States.Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
The article doesn’t say that, nor the case.
In fact, this bit seem rather interesting:
The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution’s Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,
“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Yeah, no kidding. Were a cogent legal challenge to be brought against Cruz, Rogers v. Bellei would no doubt figure prominently in the argument by the challenger. The article author does a fine job of spinning the case around.
Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States.
That sentence is from the dissenting opinion. Though both the majority and the dissent find that Bellei was a naturalized citizen, even though such existed from birth.