“Bull. The first Congress was very clear that someone who was a citizen by means of birth was a natural-born citizen. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1790. That should put to rest any question of what “Natural-born†meant to our founding fathers.”
On the contrary, the naturalization Act of 1709 (not the “Nationality Act of 1790”) clearly says a person born abroad with U.S. citizen parents was not a natural born citizen.
>> On the contrary, the naturalization Act of 1709 (not the “Nationality Act of 1790â€) clearly says a person born abroad with U.S. citizen parents was not a natural born citizen. <<
The text of the bill:
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”
The only wrinkle with Cruz is that his father was not a citizen. Thus, under this legislation, he would not have been a citizen. But that’s not my point; my point is that is that Congress defined natural-born Citizens as those who were citizens at birth. Later legislation allowed citizenship to be confirmed at birth when only one parent was a citizen.
Incidentally, Cruz’s parents were never legally permanent residents of Canada. The Canadian documents suggesting they were citizens was published precisely so they could be corrected. Cruz’s parents, not being Canadian, didn’t know this. But their failure to correct a report which incorrectly lists them as citizens in no way makes them citizens.
No it does not, if it does state that.. please give quotation. That a law is silent on an issue does NOT mean it says whatever the reader wants it to say instead.
What would a law from 1709 have to do with anything?