That is where "born" status comes into play. One has to play out any courtcase in one's mind, because "natural born citizen" actually is in the Constitution. What the Constitution doesn't detail is whether that is through place of birth and through blood, or if it is only through place of birth, so I would have to say that any reading of the Constitution has to include both, since it doesn't limit it to just one or the other. All the 14th does is point out thaty place of birth applies to anyone who is born here. (Sadly, giving rise to anchor baby citizenship.)
Since "natural born citizen" clearly includes the word "born", then that would logically extend to all those born of citizens. This is necessary due to the equal treatment understanding of the Constitution, for allowing the children of some citizens to have all the perquisites of citizenship, but denying those to others would seem to be an unequal treatment. For example, discrimination against soldiers, or businessmen, or travelers is the only way to view denying citizenship to their children when they themselves have not renounced their citizenship, and in the case of the first 2 groups, also have been pursuing interests of the nation in their absence from the geography of the USA.
So, if these children are born with my name, and born with my property, and born with my access, and born with my blood, (and even born with my income tax deduction), then it appears the state has already recognized them.
My point is that anyone attempting to revoke their citizenship would lose....probably in Congress itself, but certainly in the Courts.
This is just my opinion, but I don't think it is an illogical opinion.
The interpretation of the 14th amendment giving rise to anchor baby "citizenship" is a relatively new phenomenon, and one that some Asian parents take advantage of via "birth vacations," not to overlook the more numerous Central American parents who are in the country illegally. In the case of "birth vacations," the parents are both non-citizens, and the child is removed to his parents' country for upbringing, etc. But, they are born citizens.
Wong Kim Ark set up an interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction" so that everybody on US soil, except ambassadors, is swept in. This interpretation is contentious, with the opposing side finding that "subject to the jurisdiction" means more than having to avoid criminal acts, violations of law, having recourse in the courts for torts and crimes committed against the alien while on US soil, etc., and instead means that the person is obliged to perform the duties associated with citizenship, e.g., be subject to the draft. IIRC, the initial proposed text of the 14th amendment included something in the nature of "and not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country." That material was removed and there is no historical record explaining why (may have been viewed as duplication/superfluous, or may have been viewed as too narrow)
Plyler v. Doe reinforced the broad interpretation, including anybody (but ambassadors) on US soil, and by FN 10, appears to extend the birthright of citizenship to children born of illegal aliens. I refer to an Ann Coulter piece only because it is easy to read ... Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies - August 4, 2010. Here is a link to Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
-- My point is that anyone attempting to revoke their citizenship would lose ... --
If you mean that the government can't revoke citizenship, I disagree (Losing US Citizenship), but revocation is done on a case by case basis against people made citizens by operation of a naturalization statute. In the WOT, this comes up in Congress against ANY citizen. See Senate bill authorizes feds to revoke citizenship of Americans. Any citizen is able to revoke his own citizenship.
As to your hypothetical children (being born abroad, I assume), citizenship statutes condition the grant of citizenship on various US residency and age criteria. For example, If Obama was born outside of the US, he is not a citizen, even though his mother (assuming it's that Dunham chick) was one. He fails the statutory criteria in place in 1963.
But, I do agree that had they been recognized as citizens, they remain so unless they choose to give it up.
We need a ruling. Until we have one, there will continue to be lots of different opinions, usually with well-reasoned justification. The only opinions that matter are the judicial ones that are in the books and thus legally binding. That is what we need, and we need it BEFORE the next Presidential “game” starts so that the rules can’t change in the middle.
You’re a reasonable and good man and you’re in good company here. We love this country. Some are acting as if being concerned for this country is a bad thing. Of course we’re concerned about this country. Anybody who isn’t at this point is brain-dead.
Right now there are precious few legal moves that we the people can make before the tree of liberty ends up being watered. One of the few things we can do is give ourselves legal standing through our state laws. In this issue that means that we, collectively, can get standing to get a decision on constitutionality through mass action - the action of a state legislature. The same thing has happened regarding border enforcement, healthcare exchanges, etc. The unconstitutionality of the federal government has ONLY one thing holding it in check legally right now, and that is the states. That is the one place where we the people still have legal teeth.
What happens when the courts rule wrongly? We learn how we have to fight it. For instance, if the courts say that Eric Holder can get away with refusing to protect our borders, we know we need to impeach Eric Holder and pass laws that extract penalties of an AG who blocks the enforcement of our borders. We need to help the victims’ families win wrongful death lawsuits against Eric Holder’s pals. Etc. The purpose of finding out if one door is shut is so you can find a different door if you have to.
Thank you for the logical point.
If only everyone else would wise up.
If a person is a citizen by birth (natural born, as opposed to naturalized), then that citizenship is not going to be taken away by some future act of Congress or by a future court or whatever.
Born a citizen has meaning.
Not just on the day you are born, but forever thereafter, that is NOT going to be UNDONE.
Theorizing to the contrary notwithstanding.
The dissent disagreed (obviously, heh) and said that statutory citizens are essentially naturalized and so are 14A citizens and cannot have their citizenship revoked without their consent - meaning they believed that retention requirements were unconstitutional.
The majority said that statutory citizens are not naturalized "in" the U.S. because Congress didn't force them to go through the arduous naturalization process even though it had the power to make them do so.
I agree that, today, the court would not allow Congress to revoke Cruz' citizenship.
Regarding whether or not the Constitution specifies jus soli or jus sanguinis, the FAM says that the Constitution does not recognize jus sanguinis. (If it did, there would be no need for statutes granting citizenship at birth.):
b. Section 104(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104 (a) gives the Secretary of State the responsibility for administration and enforcement of all nationality laws related to "the determination of nationality of a person not in the United States."
1. Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person's birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.2. Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person's citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called "citizenship by descent" or "derivative citizenship", is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.