“So, if congress passes a naturalization law that attaches citizenship at birth, what is the effect of that? Does that not, under your proposition, translate into NBC by Act of Congress?”
There are two and only two types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized. Naturalized means making a foreigner a citizen.
So, while it is POSSIBLE for there to be a person naturalized at birth depending on the laws, anyone who falls into that category would NOT be a natural born citizen.
An example of how this could happen would be, according to Vattel, if foreigners living in the US had a child here and the law conferred citizenship to the child because he was born here. Vattel described this situation as the child being naturalized at birth because NATURALLY the child’s citizenship follows that of its parents. In this case that would make the child foreign, naturally, and therefore this would be naturalization to Vattel.
Vattel did not write our laws. I do not think this is what Congress intended when they passed the 14th amendment. So I think Rubio would probably be considered a natural born citizen on the basis of place of birth even though his parents were not citizens. But a reasonable argument could be made that he was naturalized at birth because naturally he was a foreigner.
Cruz was never naturalized. If he is not a naturalized citizen, and he is a citizen, then he must be a natural born citizen. If the argument is made that he was naturalized at birth, I would point out that he is, as Vattel describes, “naturally” a citizen by birth due to the citizenship of one of his parents (i.e. his mother). This part (i.e. his mother being a citizen) is NOT according to Vattel but according to the naturalization act of 1952 which applied to Cruz.
“You need to explain how the 1790 Act helps you further”
This act PROVES that the founders, who ratified the Constitution 18 months earlier, considered determining who was a natural born citizen to be within the purview of Congress under the naturalization powers. Most that argue against Cruz being a natural born citizen try to politely sweep under the rug that they actually believe the very founders of this nation did not understand what natural born citizen meant or were in direct rebellion to the Constitution they just signed. That’s just ridiculous.
The question is whether when Congress describes who is a citizen at birth, did they intend this to mean natural born citizen. And it is significant whether the founders thought that citizenship naturally followed the citizenship of the parents. The act in 1790 indicates so.
“your approach is that the NBC clause in the constitution becomes living at the whim of Congress”
The Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to create a uniform rule of naturalization. Remember that, at the time, states determined citizenship in their states. Thus, there was a need for a uniform rule. The Constitution also refers to the “Law of Nations”. These are laws that are inherent powers of all nations. Another way to think of it is that if a nation exists as a legal entity, it must have certain powers. Among these are determining who has the rights of a citizen. Another is regulating immigration.
Show me where the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to regulate immigration. It does not. Would you therefore want Congress to quit enforcing all border laws because they are unconstitutional?
The founders considered citizenship to naturally follow the father’s citizenship at birth, just like a child at birth ordinarily takes the father’s last name. However, even then the mother’s citizenship was considered. And since then, the right to vote, own property, and hold office have been recognized by changes to the Constitution and laws. So today, a child can just as well “naturally” follow the citizenship of either parent. So says the act of 1952 which is the one that applies to Cruz.
How is it possible? An infant can't participate in a naturalization ceremony.
-- This [1790] act PROVES that the founders, who ratified the Constitution 18 months earlier, considered determining who was a natural born citizen to be within the purview of Congress under the naturalization powers. --
Do you agree that my "Whoever Congress says is an NBC is an NBC"? is an accurate paraphrase of your view of the law on this question? YES or NO.
I guess another way to ask the question is, how do we figure out which of the statutes is a naturalization statute, and which are declaring a person to be a NBC. I was of a mind that you would view "at birth" as signifying a declaration of NBC, but you said that "it is POSSIBLE for there to be a person naturalized at birth."