No you don't. I have the facts as listed in the book "Law of Nations" by E. Vattel, I'm just not going to bother looking through the book to find that section where it describes this circumstance. I can already see that it would have been a waste of my time just judging by your attitude.
I deal with various incarnation of "birth" apologists all the time, and I have been developing less and less patience for their ignorance and/or deliberate misrepresentation of history and law.
The current laws of the US do in fact, make one a US citizen by birth within our borders.
More like "Defacto" and only as a result of ignorant misinterpretation of prior precedent. Even so, the dispute is not whether these people are "citizens" but whether they are "natural citizens." Again, if it requires a special law, it's not natural, it's "naturalization."
That is the “simple”
Again, "simple" is not commensurate with "true."
I would rather see a meritocracy where citizenship is earned, not granted by the location of birth.
Preference has nothing to do with it. I don't know about you, but my "Preference" is not how I determine what is the truth. What we prefer to be the truth is not always the truth, but those of us who possess intellectual honesty must admit to an unpleasant truth when we encounter one.
But again, the speculation and hypotheticals about Mr Cruz’s citizenship need to be viewed through the prism that US Laws govern US citizenship
It needs to be specifically rejected if claimed on the basis of any US Laws. Again, "natural citizenship" is a condition of nature, not of man made law. It is not subject to be defined and redefined by the latest opinions of Congress (who are attempting to pass Amnesty this very day as we speak.)
Again, as I asked Jeff,
Is there any Stone in our national foundation?
Vattel’s work is not US law, nor is it Treaty. One could argue that the philosophies espoused by Vattel have made it into a number of treaties and US laws. However, within the US, the method for establishment of law is set forth by the US Constitution.
Citizenship by birth is not “de facto” it is “de jure” per Title 18 U.S.C 1401 subsection a. Further, SCOTUS has ruled on a number of cases involving citizenship a birth. See Lynch v. Clarke (NY Chanc.Ct., Nov 5, 1844; 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 3 NY Leg.Obs. 236, 1844 WL 4804); Look Tin Sing ( D.Cal., Sep 29, 1884) 21 Fed. 905, 10 Sawyer’s Rpts. 353); United States v. Wong Kim Ark (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 U.S. 649, 42 L.Ed. 890, 18 S.Ct. 456.); Perkins v. Elg (Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 U.S. 325 at 329, 83 L.Ed. 1320 at 1324, 59 S.Ct. 884 at 888.)
As far as preference or truth, I stated the truth by identifying specific, current US law. You have failed to provide any citation other than a book of preferences that has no basis in law.
The “stone” in our national foundation is the Constitution. By means of the Constitution, the PEOPLE established and described the authorities and powers of the different branches. These are defined by the Articles contained within the Constitution. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
Article 1 Section 8 establishes the powers of Congress. One of the powers listed is “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,....”. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
Congress has done so in Title 8 US code 1401 which, in subsection a, establishes citizenship by birth. Do you agree or disagree with that fact?
Further, SCOTUS has ruled in a number of cases (see above) that Citizenship in the US is obtained by birth on our soil. do you agree or disagree with that fact?