Your case with Wong that you continue to use as proof, treats anyone (Mr. Wong/anchor baby) as a natural born citizen. And that is all it does, which is why I said it was not decided correctly. What you cite as proof is but dicta and only interesting for discussion purposes, and not determinate of the law concerning Cruz,
But I repeat my self, far too many times for my own peace of mind, so I will end it here and restate the obvious fact that no case will make it to SCOTUS on this, and that they do not want to rule on this political case.
Unless something unexpected occurs, I believe they will leave it ambiguous, because the intent was national security and national security concerning individuals is always ambiguous because it must be. If set in stone it would be easily exploited by those seeking to do damage. Simply by following the letter of the law.
If you do not see that, then I am unlikely to ever win a single point of logic with you.
Ted Cruz was born on December 22nd. 1970. At this time, his citizenship was defined by the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947. page 69 of this document clearly states that: A person born after the commencement of this act is a Natural Born Citizen: (a)if he is born in Canada or on a Canadian ship.
I'm sorry. Ted Cruz is clearly defined as a NBC of Canada and, as such, can not be a NBC of America.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I see no difference. Subject = Citizen.
I never disagreed.
Your case with Wong that you continue to use as proof, treats anyone (Mr. Wong/anchor baby) as a natural born citizen. And that is all it does, which is why I said it was not decided correctly.
It is proof that "by the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, was an English subject". and incidentally, you were the first to cite Wong in this dialectic between you and I.
What you cite as proof is but dicta and only interesting for discussion purposes, and not determinate of the law concerning Cruz...
It was determinate of the law concerning Cruz when he was erroneously citing it as proof of his natural born US Citizenship i.e. the Katyal and Clement paper which I have clearly shown to be wrong about many things.
Cruz cites their paper as proof of his Natural Born Citizenship. That proof is now gone along with their credibility as unbiased spectators in this debate. It is also worth noting that in arriving at their conclusion, Katyal and Clement also cited United States versus Wong kim Ark. Katyal and Clement also admitted that the Common Law of England was instrumental and accepted by the SCOTUS in understanding the the constitution.
OK then. the common law of England is pretty clear on this: "British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown" and "any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject."
Ted Cruz was born in the dominion of Canada where the common law is also the basis of civil. At his birth, he became a Canadian citizen as evidenced by his birth certificate. At the time of his birth, his parents were both in allegiance to Canada and when he was born, he too was in allegiance to Canada.
Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.