“1875 Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); “
M v H only cited one clear example but left interpretation of others as a possibility, so it is not a good reference outside of the definition they gave which was a child born in the US to two married US citizens.
Your comments on that other thread were hilarious.
I’ve made that point, too.
People have not only claimed Cruz isn’t natural born, but a sizable segment of them have even claimed he isn’t a citizen at all.
He’s Canadian. He’s Cuban. He’s both. He’s anything but American. The rest just say, oh, but he can’t run for president because he doesn’t fit my acceptable definition of natural born.
But it’s all hogwash. It isn’t even commen sense. It’s irrational to believe that a woman - as per your earlier example - visits across the border one day and happens to give birth in the nearest cross border hospital, and because of THAT, her baby can never be POTUS??
And the others, who say that because of THAT, her baby loses what his mother had, United States CITIZENSHIP??
I can go you one better. A pregnant American walks across the border to a store over there to buy something she can’t get on this side. She went to make a purchase and turns around to come back, but right before she hits the border she goes into labor. The baby comes right then and is delivered by a bystander or a border guard. Within inches of the border!
For THAT, the baby loses the citizenship status the mother has, and, can never run for President.
Good.Grief.People.
I will point out that Minor v Happersett did explicitly state that the 14th amendment did not define “natural born citizen.”