“Is it your contention that persons born aborad of one citizen parent were and always have been NBC?”
My contention is that the matter is within the purview of Congress and is determined by whatever naturalization laws are in effect at the time.
Children naturally receive the citizenship of their parents at birth. That is what the “natural” part of the phrase means.
This is why Rubio’s citizenship is actually more questionable than Cruz’s. But both were US citizens at birth. Cruz is naturally a US citizen by virtue of his mother’s citizenship. (Citizenship at the founding of the nation was viewed then as being conveyed from the father, just like a last name, or inheriting property. The status of women has changed in the Constitution and in the naturalization laws.)
“If the act is merely a definition, that would be the case, would it not?”
I think you still don’t get it. Hydrogen is an atom with one proton. We could call it a banana if we wanted to, but it would still have the same properties. A “natural born citizen” IS NOT something that exists apart from law. Hydrogen exists whether there are any humans to observe it. Natural born citizens do not.
Citizenship requires the legal construct of a national government. It is an innate power, part of the “Law of Nations”, by which nations can regulate who it allows to become citizens or immigrate into its borders. Government by the consent of the people is the basis for granting power to a federal government. Children are unable to consent. Parents do it for them. Naturally (there is that term again) children are under the control and direction of parents. For those who are not Communists or other Utopians, this is self-evident. When children become adults they have a moral right to renounce their citizenship. Vattel explores this in detail. So, as Vattel says, children naturally (please pay attention to that word he uses) follow the state of their parents when it comes to citizenship.
If a foreigner immigrates into the US and is naturalized, ordinarily any children brought with them are also naturalized (without the need for an oath , etc.).
Natural born citizen has three simple components. Is Cruz a citizen? Yes. Born a citizen? Yes. Is his citizenship natural? Yes. It was conveyed by his mother.
Is Rubio a citizen? Yes. Was he born citizen? Yes. Is his citizenship natural? Questionable. I think the intent and authority of Congress is that citizen at birth is natural born citizen according to the fourteenth amendment. But it is debatable. Vattel would have said he naturally would be a citizen of his parent’s native land and therefore a foreigner. Making a foreigner a citizen is naturalization. So this, if we go by Vattel, would be naturalized at birth.
In my opinion, all citizens at birth, by the current Constitution and the applicable law of naturalization, are natural born citizens.
Do I have that right?
You refer to Vattel quite a bit, as the authority for your propositions. He's an excellent obeserver of law, but I question his exposition as being superior over the constitution, when it comes to interpreting and applying the constitution.