Replies

A dissenting view, and in my opnion a determinative one, from Vattel's 'Law of Nations', in English translation:

"The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

In modern times, when both mothers and fathers are equally respected as bequeathers of citizenship at birth, this paragraph must be read as follows:

"The country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father or a mother who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Applying this to Ted Cruz, it is readily seen that Vattel would reject Canada as a natural sovereignty for Cruz; in Vattel's opinion, Canada would be 'only the place of his birth, and not his country'. Whereas, with respect to the United States, Vattel concludes that 'the country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.' Everyone, please, meet Ted Cruz, Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.

Vattel was crystal clear that, according to natural law, the child followed the condition of the father. This is still natural and in practice and evidenced by the fact that a child inherits his or her's father's last name, not his mother's and the mother herself inherits the father's last name at marriage as well. Your theory does not hold water IMO. It is not consistent with Vattel or natural law. Cruz inherited his father's condition if we are to subscribe to Vattel's Law of Nations.

We are not left to do that however as ample evidence exists to support my position that our forefathers meant a NBC to be someone born in this country at a minimum.

We can argue about the citizen parentage aspect later but it is not necessary to settle this matter as Cruz was not born in the United States and does not meet even the minimum requirement.

JV: “The country of the father OR the mother is therefore that of the children”

I actually agree with you that modern changes in how we treat women as citizens since the writing of the Constitution do affect this standing. But for some reason you defy the concept of nature-given birth. Nature determines the offspring by BOTH parents.

Prior to full rights being given to women in this country, their citizenship followed their husband. So there was no distinction between the mother and that father’s citizenship since in the eyes of the law, they were one in the same.

Now that we do distinguish the two (mother and father) as distinct citizens, the only proper reading is that they now are both required to be citizens individually. (previously they were both citizens as well but then they were not distinct).

I don’t think it would be the father OR the mother. It would have to be the father AND the mother. If the purpose of the provision was to guard against divided loyalties, back then, the father was the only parent who could confer citizenship to his progeny, so there was no problem of divided loyalty. If you then open it up to both parents, if it’s “or” you defeat the purpose of avoiding divided loyalty, but if it’s “and”, you maintain it.