It is true that the ‘Naturalization Act’ statutory conditionalities were met. However, that does not answer your question fully.
First point: Ted Cruz would have been a citizen of the Untied States absent the act due to natural inheritance of nationality from his mother under the theories set forth by Vattel and others that link citizenship to lineage, not to place, despite all the FUD and confusion thrown at this issue over the past eight years.
Second point: It is within the power of the legislatures (and Congress) to define the conditionalities and rules for inclusion in certain classes under certain words that may be found in the Constitution. For example, the Constitution mentions ‘resident’ in several places, but does not define the term. The determination of who is and who is not a ‘resident’ is left to the States generally, and their legislatures set the rules governing that determination by enacting statutes.
Congress is similarly empowered to define the conditionalities that must be met to acquire citizenship by birth, and Congress has done so. Your argument that this is a form of naturalization relies on the fact that the provisions are found in an act with the word nationalization in its title, but that is entirely non-determinative. The statutory requirements for citizenship by birth could just as easily have been found in an act called the “National Sagebrush Preservation Act,” but that would not mean that citizens by birth are therefore ‘sagebrush’.
Bottom line is that there is no cogent, thoughtful, rational, sensible reason to distinguish among citizens by birth; according ‘natural born’ status to some and not to all.
[[Your argument that this is a form of naturalization relies on the fact that the provisions are found in an act with the word nationalization in its title, but that is entirely non-determinative.]]
Exactly, the SC pretty much defined a distinction between ‘naturalized under ‘at birth and by birth’ and ‘naturalized ‘after birth’ (ie a child born to two non citizens- even if born ‘on soil’ here In the US) The ‘naturalization’ by ‘at birth and by birth’ need no act or statute ceremony, and differ from ‘after birth’ ceremony needed via a statute in order to convey citizenship- at birth and by birth need no ceremony ot convey citizenship it is a birthright- or citizenship by descent
No, that is exactly the opposite of what Vattel says. Vattel does link citizenship to allegiance and jurisdiction.
The first immigration act was passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III is Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States.
Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:”
Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States.
Cruz was born under the jurisdiction of Canada. His father was under the jurisdiction of Canada. Because his mother was most likely an American citizen at the time he was entitled to become an American citizen by statute but he was not born an American citizen, it had to be adjudged. Furthermore his father had not fulfilled the condition of residency.
> First point: Ted Cruz would have been a citizen of the Untied States absent the act due to natural inheritance of nationality from his mother...
And the inheritance of the father?
Negative. You’re spouting BS.
Citizenship is due to statute. The status conferred is “citizen”
> Your argument that this is a form of naturalization relies on the fact that the provisions are found in an act with the word nationalization in its title, but that is entirely non-determinative. The statutory requirements for citizenship by birth could just as easily have been found in an act called the “National Sagebrush Preservation Act,” but that would not mean that citizens by birth are therefore “sagebrush”.
Seriously?