"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: Provided, that the right of citizenship that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"
This passage was changed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 to read:
"SEC.3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States."
Cruz doesn't mention the 1795 repeal, nor does he address the term "citizens" as it pertains to parentage. These two passages from these two acts clearly define what natural born citizen means as someone born to two citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States because being born to two citizen parents outside the jurisdiction of the United States was defined as a "citizen" by the Congress of 1795.
Why the deceit? This also applies to Mark Levin as well. There is outright misrepresentation going on.
You dwell on the word “citizens,” and you argue the law means a child born abroad of two American citizens is a natural born citizen. You would be correct if the law read CHILD of American citizens (meaning a CHILD born abroad of two American citizens is a natural-born citizens.
The law clearly states CHILDREN of CITIZENS, both plurals, but that can only be read as a CHILD of a CITIZEN if there was only one child born of the union of the father and mother. In which case, only one parent need be an American citizen to have that CHILD a natural-born citizen.
Tell me where in that passage it says both parents have to be citizens. I see nothing in what you’ve cited to indicate that.