I don’t see it that way. Cruz needed to satisfy the statute first. A Canadian child born in Canada would have evoked sympathies from American’s that would not make him American. He could have been refused citizenship if his mother didn’t have residence requirements, if she renounced her citizenship, if she weren’t able to produce the required papers the citizenship would not have been awarded.
That inescapable fact that shows he was not a natural born citizen but was a citizen by statute under the designation of the Consulate or United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
I don’t like being put in the position of harping on the issue. The Constitution and the requisite Amendments and legal decisions are likewise open to all to read. By providing the links I seek to give others the avenue to read and satisfy themselves.
Ted Cruz was entitled to become an American citizen when he was born if he fulfilled the statutes to the satisfaction of the State Dept/Consulate. That is not the same as automatic birthright citizenship and no amount of wishing will make it so. In my opinion its a shame but there are many ways he can exert his efforts on behalf of America without trying to evade the constitutional requirements for the office of the Presidency.
I understand your position, but disagree with it, which is why I used the hypotheticals I did.
You are not harping. You are making an understandable case on a potentially complicated matter. It gets more complicated when Common Law and Natural Law are brought in, as even Natural Law requires a judicial framework (e.g. laws defining the boundaries and jurisdiction of a nation). Also, while the terms “citizen” and “subject” are analogous, they are certainly NOT identical.
I understand being Natural Born the same way the traditional Catholic Church sees annulments. It is a declaration that a valid marriage did not take place. However, even though it didn’t, yo still have to get a formal declaration to get that fact recognized.