“The constitution expresses who shall be citizens of the US, does it not?”
You mean this?
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
Well, yes and no. Before 1790, the laws of individual state determined who was a citizen of that state. That is why Congress was given power to create a uniform rule of naturalization.
“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.”
See above.
Too many threads. I am consolidating yours because I am talking to more than one person.
“Would it be accurate to say that your view of the law on the subject is that persons born abroad of one citizen parent are NOT naturalized? YES or NO.”
Depends on the naturalization law in effect. For Cruz, yes. For Obama, no. Both had mother’s who were US citizens. But Obama’s mother did not meet the requirements of the 1952 act. Cruz’s mother did.
And I am not going to get into a discussion over what the courts say. They can be all over the board. The only court issue that would matter is what the courts would say right now about Cruz. Other than that, the clear intent of the founders is what matters.
“Off the top of my head, it seems to me that your definition of NBC comes from Vattel, not from US law.”
You would certainly have a point IF the Constitution clearly defined “natural born citizen”. It did not. However, the first act of Congress on the matter 18 months later does give us a clue to their understanding of the term and intent. That and history seem to support the Vattel definition.
“Setting aside the NBC clause (which sets forth a limitation), where do you find jus sanguinis in the constitution?”
I’ve already answered this. I’m not taking the time to repeat all that I said. You will need to go back and read it again if you are interested in my opinion on that.
I asked whether or not the person was naturalized, and your answer says Cruz was a citizen, and a hypothetical Obama would not be. But your answer does not directly say whether Cruz was naturalized.
Also, does it not strike you as "weird" that Congress can make and eliminate NBC's by statute? From the founding of the country until 1934, a US citizen mother married to an alien father could not produce a US citizen on birth abroad, the 1790 act did not make those children citizens (see the Bellei case). What's "natural" about that? Vattel didn't disappear in that interim, only to suddenly reappear in 1934.
-- I am not going to get into a discussion over what the courts say. They can be all over the board. --
I take that as you being unwilling to support your point of view with authority.
It is also telling that you won't give a direct answer to "where do you find jus sanguinis in the constitution?"
I'm held to produce authority for my propositions, and yours are correct just because you say so. That is at best unfair on your part.
Given a choice between case law and unlearner's word, every reasonable person will go with the case law.