Do it!
Get it over with.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
If you believe what is written in that “UN”educated law review, then maybe you would also be interest in buying this nice section of ocean front property in South Dakota that I have for sale.
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by
federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), it
may be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and
“naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that
someone who is a citizen “at birth” is not considered to have been “naturalized.”164 Justice
Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of
citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to
“involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(23).165 The
Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically
defines “naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,”166
and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and
jurisprudence, one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically “at birth” or “by birth” could
not be considered to be “naturalized.”
............................................
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent
case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being
born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the
residency requirement. In United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, a case dealing with the
propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of
the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968
is a natural born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2)
born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met
certain residency requirements.167
.............................
Article II states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.” Article II left
to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers
v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828, 91 S.Ct. 1060, 28 L.Ed.2d 499 (1971). Many decades later, the
Fourteenth Amendment set a floor on citizenship, overruled the Dred Scott decision, and
provided that all born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, were citizens by reason of birth (or naturalization proceedings, for that matter). Id. at
829-30, 91 S.Ct. 1060.
At the time of Senator’s McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that
“[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose
father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States,
is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48
Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of
the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to
encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. [United
States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687 (1898) ....]
Under this view, Senator McCain was
a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s
circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that
persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby
retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.
This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that
Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of
success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks. 170
The federal court in Robinson v. Bowen thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural
born” citizen in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow
“common law” meaning (jus soli, being born geographically in the United States without
reference to parental citizenship, as codified in the Fourteenth Amendment), but also the statutory
designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” even if born
abroad when such citizenship is transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Congressional Research Service Report
Do we have any evidence that Cruz went through a naturalization process to become a U.S. Citizen? If not, it would seem he is either a natural born citizen - or he is not a citizen at all. If the latter is the case, Trump needs to sue to get Cruz out of the Senate as he is not eligible to serve and to have him deported back to Canada.
Trump is smart enough to know this is a non-issue and that any suit, by anyone, will be tossed out before the ink on the filing check has dried.
Trump also knows a large percentage of those he may be supported by are not smart enough to know that this is indeed a settle matter.
Trump has run a large amount of his campaigning by inference and innuendo. Certainly not a very straight forward way to honorably present one’s self for election as President.
I'm of the same opinion. He needs to fish or cut bait.