Ok I just went back through my comments history, at it’s clear that Cdbolt thinks that persons, such as Cruz and Bellei, who both had the same circumstances, (ie, citizen mother, non citizen father, both born off soil) who is granted citizenship via statute is always naturalized- simply because it’s an act of statute, and he contends that it is not automatic, I presume, because it is not directly mentioned in the constitution and needed later statutes in order to define.
A further point of his is that because NBC can’t be taken away (it must be relinquished by the person), and citizenship can be taken away from a ‘naturalized person’ by statute, this makes the person a ‘naturalized person who’s citizenship depends on statute’, and a court could strip the person of citizenship if certain requirements aren’t met, and this is why Bellei lost his citizenship- claiming that congress can occasionally put out an Act of Congress that is repetitive of the constitution, but that this does not turn the act into the constitution.
The above points seem to be the central argument by Cdbolt and those that contend that Ted isn’t eligible- and he later brought up a phrase in our discussions that states “Shall be considered” which I felt was an important phrase because it seemed to be a congressional declaration that indicates that an act is taking place via statute, and I think this point is one of the major ones where all the stickiness/confusion of the issue of NBC comes up
But then the whole CRS report came to my attention ,and things became less certain again because it appears that courts may see ‘at birth and by birth’ as operation of the constitution while ‘after birth’ is an operation of statute
I think these few points are what the whole crux of the discussions has been over- and he believes that since Bellei’s citizenship hinged on requirements of a statuette, his citizenship could not have been an operation of the constitution, nor can Ted’s
(Note, The secondary issue seems to be that the Nguyen case declares that because an unwed mother’s child’s citizenship relies on requirements set forth in a statute regarding the father, that it becomes a matter of an operation of statute, and this implies naturalization)
I do see the significance of 1101a (23) where it states the definition of ‘naturalization by stating -conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,- and the key to this is the term ‘after birth’ which seems to be distinct from ‘at birth and by birth’, both of the later category which seem to be acts of natural law/common law (which seems to be a most reasonable conclusion because it would seem unfair that a mother who is vacationing overseas, off soil, who has a child there, that the child would be automatically disqualified from running for president
Like you said in another thread, the whole intent of the naturalization laws was to prevent people with ill intent and bias against the country because of allegiance to another country from being eligible to run for president, and it just seems to be common sense that a citizen mother having a child off soil while on vacation is not what our founding fathers were trying to prevent because such a birth doesn’t automatically instill allegiance In the child to the foreign government-
bump