Replies

The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. This principle is Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent, which means 'words must be understood to have some effect. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example of 'natural law' would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. When they are talking about 'unalienable rights', they are talking about 'natural law'.

So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship. Born in or out of a country. Both parents are citizens. One parent is a citizen. Neither parent is a citizen.
The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable".

The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320? CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens by birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, notice these are not 'Citizens at birth', they are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference, persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence. Until that time they are 'nationals', who qualify 'by birth' to automatically become Citizens when they permanently move to the US.

That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen bt/at birth, they are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'.

Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

And of course, you cut out all the parts that don't fit with this narrative.

It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us;

And:

Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

Madison said that it was a "General Principle" that if you are born somewhere, you are a citizen thereof, and this is true. Many states having made no statutory law on the subject, continued relying on English Common Law to define their citizenship.

This is not the same thing as Federal Citizenship, and Madison said so in his letter to the Alexandria Herald in 1811 in the case of James McClure.