Finally!
And neither are their citizenship laws. It makes NO difference to our laws whether Canada considered Ted Cruz a citizen or if they did not. It's an irrelevancy .
As for Vattel, his view of the primacy of jus sanguinis is bleeding through his language throughout this quote and others equally compelling. He mentions it over and over and over again.
By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him...
Except we weren't talking about Cruz, I was correcting your ignorance.
And yes, there laws DO have relevance as far as them making him a citizen is concerned. If they didn't he wouldn't be waving around a Canadian birth certificate.
You would have realized this were you as well-versed in Vattel as you claim to be.
Here's the rest of § 215 -
But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
Cruz's father claimed refugee status when he left Cuba with no intention to return, and resided in Canada for several years. Thus he had *quit his country*, become a member of a new society, and his son became a member of it also.
---
As for Vattel, his view of the primacy of jus sanguinis is bleeding through his language throughout this quote and others equally compelling. He mentions it over and over and over again.
The primacy of blood does not negate the necessity of the soil. You're conclusion that Vattel intended foreign born children of citizens to be natural born when he clearly did not define them as such is just as flawed as your original contention that Canada had no such term as natural born.