“An infant can’t participate in a naturalization ceremony.”
True. But infants can be naturalized. For example: foreign parents immigrate and become citizen. By law, their children usually become citizens with them. Another example: US citizens adopt a foreign child. The child also becomes naturalized. They do not need to swear an oath of allegiance, etc.
I believe that the original intent of Congress was that “naturally” conveyed citizenship was by the parents. (Jus sanguinis) This is supported by the words of the act in 1790. But also, the 14th amendment probably supports “naturally” conveyed citizenship by where a child is born. (Jus soli)
“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.”
NO. Congress cannot retroactively make anyone a “natural born citizen”. Also, if Congress said that children born in Mexico to parents who were not US citizens at the time are “natural born citizens”, they would be redefining the term. “Natural” as pertains to citizenship must be either Jus sanguinis, Jus soli, or both. Beyond that Congress would be redefining the term. The only way to do that would be through an amendment.
And the issue for Cruz, Obama, and Rubio depends on which of the three possibilities above apply. My argument is that Jus sanguinis must apply because the act in 1790 proves the founders regarded citizenship as being naturally conveyed at birth according to the citizenship of the parents.
If YES, can you cite one court precedent that supports your view? One precedent where the child born abroad to one or two US citizen parents was NOT naturalized. There are hundreds of court cases to pick from, on citizenship, with birth abroad to one or both citizen parents.
-- if Congress said that children born in Mexico to parents who were not US citizens at the time are "natural born citizens", they would be redefining the term. --
Sort of like when the government says "persons up the age of 22 shall be considered as children" redefines "child?"
Off the top of my head, it seems to me that your definition of NBC comes from Vattel, not from US law.
-- Congress cannot retroactively make anyone a "natural born citizen". --
In 1958, Congress passed a law that said persons born in Alaska since 1867 were US citizens at birth. Is that law (still on the books) unconstitutional? Extra credit, this question has no bearing on whether or not Cruz is a naturalized citizen.
-- Another example: US citizens adopt a foreign child. The child also becomes naturalized. --
Since when? That isn't a trick question, it has an answer and I know the answer. Just for extra points, totally irrelevant to whether Cruz is naturalized or not.
The constitution expresses who shall be citizens of the US, does it not? Art IV, Sec. 2 and the 14th amendment. The founders composed Art IV Sec. 2.
The constitution operated before the 1790 naturalization act was passed (it would operate if no naturalization act was ever passed), and surely there were citizens who were not born-abroad.
Setting aside the NBC clause (which sets forth a limitation), where do you find jus sanguinis in the constitution?
Looking at jus sanguinis ... if a married couple, both US citizens, moves abroad and has a child, the child is a citizen by jus sanguinis.
Can that child transmit his citizenship by jus sanguinis, without ever setting foot in the US? The UK has this, allows transmission of citizenship by jus sanguinis across two generations. I bring up the UK just to say that this sort of citizenship arrangement exists in the real world.
My question to you, is what is the limit of the "definition" of NBC, that constrains Congressional Act. How far can Congress go "full jus sanguinis" without redefining the term NBC? How many generations can become citizens without setting foot on US soil? Where do you find the authority for the limits of NBC, if there is one?