In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), Mr. Bellei was a US citizen who was born in Italy. His mother was a US citizen, his father was Italian.
Mr. Cruz and Mr. Bellei have identical birth circumstance for purposes of analysis, although Mr. Bellie's father never resided in the US - totally irrelevant factoid, but it is a potential difference in a different case.
Citizenship granted to Mr. Cruz and Mr. Bellei arises under slightly different statutes. As noted in opening, Mr. Bellei was a US citizen, as is Mr. Cruz. Under the Act of Congress that applied to Bellei, he had to reside in the US for certain number of years before he reached a certain age. It was a further condition, to maintain the US citizenship that he obtained at birth.
Mr. Bellei did not satisfy the conditions enumerated in the act of Congress, which created the issue that lead to the case. Mr. Bellei lost his citizenship, and sued to get it back.
If Bellei had been an NBC, his citizenship would not be subject to an Act of Congress, and could not have been stripped. The case would not exist.
The case was decided 5-4, turning on the meaning of "in", in the 14th amendment phrase "born or naturalized in the United States." Obviously, Bellei was not born in the US.
The majority said that Bellei was naturalized in Italy, not in the US. And so, it was not unconstitutional to strip him of his citizenship. The dissent felt this literal reading was wring, and "in the United states" should be read as "anywhere in the world."
The case is loaded with historical reference and at one point literally says "Bellei, as a naturalized American ..."
Don't take my word for it. I linked the case above. Correct me where I am wrong, or admit this is the was SCOTUS views citizenship acquired solely by operation of an Act of Congress.
Brief Summary of Rogers v. Bellei: 01/16/2016 6:14:49 PM
Mr. Bellei was born and lived the first few years of his life as an American citizen identically situated to Ted Cruz (foreign born, foreign resident, alien father, expat mother). As an adult, Bellei had his citizenship forcible stripped for not meeting USA residency requirements. This could only occur if Mr. Bellei was not a natural born Citizen (in fact, he was just a mere born citizen).
Note that citizenship can only be removed at one's behest AND only if confirmed twice AND only with the required forms to renounce it AND only by providing proof that one will not be left stateless. Bellei did none of those. He did not give his citizenship up voluntarily (indeed he went to court to retain it). The fact that the government could take it away in spite of all that proves that he was not born a natural born Citizen.
Bellei sued the government in order to retain the USA citizenship he was born with, but the SCOTUS upheld the original decision with the dissent noting that he was not even protected under the penumbra of the 14th Amendment. The key point here is that Cruz and Bellei were of exactly the same citizenship status at birth, therefore Cruz is also not a natural born Citizen (a status which is solely and entirely determined at the moment of birth).
Bellei is an exact proxy for Cruz. And the SCOTUS unequivocally held that Bellei was merely a born citizen, thereby excluding any possibility that he be a natural born Citizen. It's game over for Cruz because Trump has the standing to bring this to the court's attention. Do you really think he won't if it comes to that?
Also note that without the change in naturalization law passed in 1934 allowing female citizens to pass on derivative citizenship to their children born outside the USA, Ted Cruz would not be a citizen at all. He is a statutory born citizen, not a natural born Citizen as the Constitution demands of presidents.
Derivative born citizenship is statutory citizenship granted by congress. It is a conditional man-made privilege, not a natural right like natural born Citizenship and, thus, may be revoked as in the case of Bellei. Only if it has been perfected by naturalization does it fall under the protective penumbra of the Fourteenth Amendment and become irrevocable (but still not natural).
Even though Ted Cruz's citizenship was perfected when his mother later (probably) filed a CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) for her son, he still was born under the exact same circumstances as Mr. Bellei, so Cruz was even less than naturalized at birth (just like Mr. Bellei). There is no way Ted Cruz can be a natural born Citizen because that status is irrevocable and Mr. Bellei (same status as Cruz) actually ended up having his citizenship taken away from him against his will. This proves that neither Bellei nor Cruz were born as natural born Citizens.
The Constitution's presidential eligibility requirements have never changed and cannot be changed by mere act of congress (only by amendment). Cruz's birth circumstances are the same as Bellei's and Bellei's birth citizenship status was so tenuous as to be later removed altogether. A true natural born Citizen can never have citizenship removed -- even for high treason. This point is worth repeating until it fully sinks in.
Ted Cruz knows he is not eligible, yet he continues to accept campaign donations. That is fraud. You cannot support this man and support the Constitution.