Ted Cruz is No Anchor Baby, Donald Trump

Redstate ^ | January 30, 2016

[Cboldt]

From one perspective, then, the statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child's birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so.

I want you to expound on this "equivalence." You seem to be asserting the proposition that the equivalence is absolute. We can skip the case where the citizen-parent is the father, because the equivalence noted here pertains only when the citizen-parent is the mother.

I think your contention is that the blockquote stands for the proposition that a child born abroad to an unwed citizen mother is NBC of the US, which means the citizenship of the child does not depend on a statute.

In short, you read the passage as asserting that there is no distinction between born-abroad and born-in-the-US, to a US-citizen mother, out of wedlock.

What is Tuan Anh Nguyen's citizenship status? Citizen or not? What was the outcome of the case on that point? If there is no distinction between born-abroad and born-in-the-US (to a US-citizen mother, out of wedlock), what would the outcome be?

[Cboldt]

I refuse to engage Springfield Reformer.

[Cboldt]

I read the post #40 by Springfield Reformer. He’s making a different argument than you are, one that looks at conditions subsequent to birth, associated with 1409. His contention is that because 1401 has no conditions subsequent to birth, that citizenship under 1401 is not naturalization. His contention is directly contradicted by the Bellei case.

[weston]

Exactly! He is not eligible.
And there is not one Cruz supporter who thinks Obama would have been eligible if he was born in Kenya!

[Jenny217]

Good question to ponder.

[Bob434]

[[I refuse to engage Springfield Reformer.]]

Sorry, I wasnt’ aware of that- I just ran across his argument in that other thread- it seemed like it’s making the same points which i’ll point out below-

[[His contention is directly contradicted by the Bellei case.]]

Yes I know, that’s why I pointed to it- and it is also the contention of the CRS report from what I understand of it- and it’s the point I was trying to bring up- although unfortunately far more clumsily in my case-

[[His contention is that because 1401 has no conditions subsequent to birth, that citizenship under 1401 is not naturalization.]]

Correct- this the point I was trying to make- under 1401, no -conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,- needs take place-

[magellan]

A law passed after the Constitution was ratified does not "lock" something into the Constitution.

Furthermore, the 1790 law does not completely define the term.

It is still an open question.

Here is a Harvard Law Review article which seems to align with Mark Levin's interpretation.

On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen"

[odawg]

“A law passed after the Constitution was ratified does not “lock” something into the Constitution.”

I never suggested or even hinted that it did.

Do you know what document Cruz used to obtain his driver’s license? Anything other than an American birth certificate would require some type naturalization document, which would rule out natural born. Why does Cruz not release it?