Replies

I believe Cruz is loyal to the US. In fact nothing in his behavior would suggest otherwise. Meanwhile most other pols in Washington serve the anti American media and the foreign interests that control the media. ,P>I tend to agree...for now. How many times have we been thrilled to have some one who finally get's, then to only turn after sampling the Potomac wine?

I like Cruz, don't get me wrong, but I'll jump on his ship after and when in time he has proved his self to my satisfaction.

"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".

And that is not relevant, Cruz has only one parent Citizen. Besides, they rescinded that in 1795.

If Congress has to determine by statute who is NBC, then said person is not Natural Born, are they.

"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".

And that is not relevant, Cruz has only one parent Citizen.

I was only addressing the foreign soil issue.

Besides, they rescinded that in 1795.

The 1790 Act (and the 1795 Act) were about Naturalization. Since NBC can't be legislated, the 1790 Act simply gives an indication of who the Founders thought were NBC.

If Congress has to determine by statute who is NBC, then said person is not Natural Born, are they.

See above comment.

I've taken the presence of that language in the 1790 Act, as well as the later rescinding of it in the 1795 Act, to mean that Original Intent was not to preclude individuals born outside US jurisdiction to citizen parents (with residency restrictions) from being regarded as natural-born citizens.

But, there was a problem, clearly. The upshot was that individuals born under such circumstance were to be regarded as citizens only, and that has been the case ever since.

We have an example of individuals born outside the jurisdiction to citizen parents that has never been in dispute, and that would be children of diplomats. Why has this never been disputed? Because diplomatic relations require such representation to have diplomatic immunity, ie they're not under another jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction therefore is the problem in attempting to legislate such status. Some foreign sovereignties claim jurisdiction in the form of citizenship over all births within their geographic territory. Others don't.

“If Congress has to determine by statute who is NBC, then said person is not Natural Born, are they.”

Congress’s role in citizenship is clearly defined the Constitution. Article I, Section 8.

It is responsible for uniform nationalization rules to make people naturalized citizens. It has absolutely no defined or stated role in realm in the Constitution for ‘defining’ a natural born citizen. As you state - If they need a law - they ain’t natural.

Some say that Ted Cruz never ‘went through the naturalization process’. So? Neither does anyone who is collectively naturalized. Congress can pass laws making any a citizen with any criteria. The individual process is only one of many routes of naturalization.

And if a person is citizenship solely due to a single American parent when born overseas could they ever lose that citizenship? Congress said yes - and the Supreme Court agreed. So if this is the case - how in the world can that person be a natural born Citizen?

Rogers v. Bellei confirmed that person may INVOLUNTARILY LOSE their citizenship if they do not meet a residence requirement. That simply can not happen to a true natural born Citizen. Natural born Citizen have no requirement - none, never.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Bellei

Rogers v Bellei by itself shows Cruz to be ineligible.