Trump forced the Obama crew to produce a US born birth certificate for Obama... and people think a Canadian birth certificate for Cruz makes him eligible.
Cruz ought to be ashamed to make such mockery of the Constitution.
Not everyone agrees:
On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen"
Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President.
As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The "natural born" terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c).
But the question remains whether the term "natural born Citizen" used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of "citizen" in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship though jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution.
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.
BTW - in Wong Kim Ark he was deemed by the SCOTS to be a Natural Born US citizen from birth. "Children born in the United States of foreigners permanently domiciled and resident in the U.S. at the time of birth automatically acquire U.S. citizenship via the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Rogers v. Bellei
The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.
Issue
Does Congress have the power to revoke the citizenship of a non-naturalized citizen of the United States by imposing conditions subsequent regarding residency?
Holding and Rule (Blackmun)
Yes. Congress has the power to revoke the citizenship of a non-naturalized citizen of the United States by imposing conditions subsequent regarding residency.
Congress has the power to impose conditions subsequent regarding residence upon the citizenship of those born outside the United States. The plaintiff is not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment which defines "citizen" as one who is "born or naturalized in the United States".
The central factor in our weighing of the plaintiff's claim to United States citizenship is that he was neither born nor naturalized in the United States and has not been subject to its jurisdiction. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment therefore does not apply to Bellei. The plaintiff's claim must therefore rest on some restriction of the power of Congress other than the Fourteenth Amendment.
Our law in this area follows the English concept of jus soli; the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute. Congress has an appropriate concern regarding dual nationality. The provisions of the Act imposing conditions subsequent on citizenship are not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. The Act is not an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress.
Disposition
Reversed.
Dissent (Black)
The Court today holds that Congress can indeed rob a citizen of his citizenship just so long as five members of this Court can satisfy themselves that the congressional action was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. This test does not appear in the Constitution.
The Court today is overruling its holding in Afroyim that no one can be deprived of citizenship without his assent. This meaning of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment should not be blown around by every passing political wind that changes the composition of this Court.
FWIW, the statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.
One has to be careful not to put SCOTUS rulings as being the very last word or always being the correct ruling or not subject to being subsequently overturned.
See United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, NIFB V Seleblius, King V Burwell, Kelo v. City of New London, etc. Were all these rulings correct and the very "last word"? And how did Dred Scott v. Sandford end up working out?
List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions
We are talking about children born to service members. Nobody is saying they are not citizens at birth. They are. They are just not natural born citizens.
If that is the case, then every married US service member of a child procreating age who is given orders to deploy for a long term assignment overseas and moves there with their spouse, such as a base in Germany, should be able to refuse such an assignment based on the assumption that any of their children born while serving their country overseas, would be deemed to be a second class citizen. Would you not agree?
Perhaps a US service member will eventually bring a case before the SCOTUS because their child is only a "naturalized" citizen and not subject to the full rights as one born on US soil? Or most likely not because such children born abroad to two US citizen parents while deployed abroad are NBC's.