Also, those who think being born abroad to a U.S. parent automatically confers Natural Born status are sadly mistaken.
They obviously don't know anything about the 1971 ruling by the SCOTUS in Rogers vs. Bellei:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=401&invol=815
"Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing [401 U.S. 815, 830] rights, and affirmative of existing law," so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence:
"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
4. The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, "No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with . . . ." United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 475 (1917). See United States v. Ness, 245 U.S. 319 (1917); Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17 (1928). And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens. Congress [401 U.S. 815, 831] responded to that situation only by enacting the 1855 statute. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S., at 311 . But more than 50 years had expired during which, because of the withholding of that benefit by Congress, citizenship by such descent was not bestowed. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 673 -674. Then, too, the Court has recognized that until the 1934 Act the transmission of citizenship to one born abroad was restricted to the child of a qualifying American father, and withheld completely from the child of a United States citizen mother and an alien father. Montana v. Kennedy, supra.
Further, it is conceded here both that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei [a child born abroad] and may prescribe a period of residence in the United States as a condition precedent without constitutional question.
Thus we have the presence of congressional power in this area, its exercise, and the Court's specific recognition of that power and of its having been properly withheld or properly used in particular situations.
VI
This takes us, then, to the issue of the constitutionality of the exercise of that congressional power when it is used to impose the condition subsequent that confronted plaintiff Bellei. We conclude that its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful, and that it withstands the present constitutional challenge."
Ergo, if Congress has the Constitutional powers to place limits and qualifiers onto a Child Born Abroad's citizenship status, then it obviously doesn't follow a Natural law---of which, Congress cannot bestow and cannot take away through legislation.
Just my twenty bucks worth.
Cheers!
Well, Here's what Congress will look towards when confronted with a child born abroad who is running for President:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30527.pdf
I. Presidential Candidates
Qualifications for the Office of President
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years[1]. Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement[2]. Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may serve more than two full terms, although a Vice President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves less than two full years of the prior incumbent’s term may seek election to two additional terms.
(We have to go to footnote #2 to see the exceptions for children born outside the continental U.S.):
[2] Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as “natural born” citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President, provided they meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States. [...] [U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Insular Areas and Their Political Development, by Andorra Bruno and Garrine P. Laney, CRS Report 96-578GOV (Washington: Jun. 17, 1996), pp. 9, 21, 33].
Basically, what that footnote is saying is that children born in those aforementioned territories, just like children in the States, are exempt from having to have parents that are natural born citizens in order to be the Prez.
Obviously, he wasn't born in a territory specified in footnote 2, and so, he doesn't get an exemption from the "Natural Born citizen parents" requirement.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to one U.S. citizen parent (mother) [Natural Born, I don't know] and one non-US citizen (father)[Natural Born, obviously NO WAY!].
So, Congress's own report (written in 2000) on Presidential Elections appears to disqualify Ted Cruz since the requirement for Natural Born parents [plural]--note it also says "citizens" [again, plural]--when dealing with a child born abroad, has not been met according to this Congressional report.
I will grant you that it could be just a grammar usage issue, but I've even seen this "parents" [plural] usage in legal documents even when discussing a single child born abroad.
Just my 2 bits. You can take it or leave it. I don't really have a horse in this race--except the U.S.A.
P.S. - If anyone has an updated copy of this Congressional Report, please leave me a link. I'd appreciate it.
BTW - How many here would be defending Obama's Natural Born status so vehemently, and with such fervor, if he HAD been born in Kenya???