In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth [20]. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen [41].
Thus, the modern-day consensus opinion (that birthplace alone confers natural born citizenship), though widely held, appears to be an assumption, not settled law or established fact.
Uhm...I said this before.
I was condemned for it because it didn’t match the opinion of others concerning Cruz.
This is not going to be a Cruz-NBC thread. It’s a discussion of 14A citizenship to children of illegals born on U.S soil. Keep it within bounds. Thank you.
I meant to say “please.” Apologies!
That part of the BOR was put in place for a specific purpose whose time has long since come and gone. It has been thoroughly abused to it’s limit.
Cruz’s father had no citizenship to any country that I’m aware of at the time of Ted’s birth.
Castro had stripped any dissenter of Cuban citizenship.
What country was Cruz’s father a citizen of?
You were condemned? Another example of the victim mentality. You were not condemned, you’re still here aren’t you? But the fact that you say you were ‘condemned’ should reveal to you as a learning observation about yourself that you play loose with words, meanings and concepts.
So let’s set you straight Ok?
Both of the decisions you describe took place before the 19th Amendment which effectively changes terms of your paragraph to father or mother.
Ted Cruz was born of an American citizen parent unlike the subject of this thread where the children are born of both a mother and a father neither of which is an American citizen and who furthermore are illegal and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of US Courts save for being subject to deportation.
Back to Ted Cruz, although he was born in Canada to his American citizen mother, she was ‘residing’ in Canada for work purposes only while maintaining her ‘domicile’ in the United States. She did not renounce her US citizenship nor did she perform any act to bring into question her LOYALTY and ALLEGIANCE to the United States.
There is a difference between ‘residence’ and ‘domicile’ in legal definitions. It is no different than if Thomas Jefferson as US Ambassador to France had children in Paris keeping a ‘residence’ there while maintaining his ‘domicile’ at Monticello, Virginia.
Giving birth to Ted Cruz in Canada from an American citizen parent who kept a legal domicile in the United States confers natural American citizenship upon Ted Cruz.
The fact that Canada confers its citizenship automatically on any child born on its soil knowingly or unknowingly to the parents or the child is irrelevant to Ted Cruz’ eligibility. A challenge that Ted Cruz may be considered a dual citizen by either the Canadian or US governments is moot because Ted Cruz officially renounced his citizenship to Canada which he or his parents never sought to begin with and in so doing he disavowed any allegiance or loyalty to that government which never existed to begin with.
Being born on soil that is NOT American soil or territory does not in itself disqualify the birth child from consideration as a natural born citizen. Madison addressed this question more than 200 years ago when asked of the status of children born to an American citizen father while transiting AT SEA or sojourning ABROAD. Madison clarified that such children were indeed ‘natural born’ in the sense that no naturalization was required.
Prior to the 19th Amendment, women that were married to an American citizen were automatically conferred American citizenship and any previous status they may have had that was not American was voided. It did not matter if the woman was German, Mexican, Sioux, Chinese or undocumented. She was automatically an American citizen by virtue of her marriage to an American citizen. Therefore, all children born to a married American citizen father were by default born to two US Citizen parents.
Yes, I agree. Cruz, as much as I respect him, does not pass Constitutional muster.
Inglis v. Trustee predates the Fourteenth Amendmnent, and the defendant in Elk v. Wilkins was an Indian who was not under the jurisdiction of the U.S., or so the court ruled.