When Madison rewrote the Act in 1795, he took that out.
As an attorney, I’d say that this is the best article I have read on the topic.
The issue is that there just isn’t a clear definition of the phrase. Legal terms of art get their definition either from a statute, e.g. “treason” in the Constitution, or through development if the common law. NBC really has neither. There just aren’t dozens of cases from the 18th century on whether you are a nbc if: your mom is a citizen and your dad isn’t,and vice versa, you’re born here, or not, etc.
In the end it was bad job by Madison. He should have defined the term.
When Madison rewrote the Act in 1795, he took that out.So, Congress does have the right and responsibility to define the term. And, in this case, it's possible that a child born between 1790 and 1795 would have been a NBC, while his younger sibling, born under identical circumstances but after 1795, would not.
the end it was bad job by Madison. He should have defined the term.Agreed. But that doesn't allow us to just ignore the relevant laws. There have been dozens of "immigration laws", several of which have included definitions of "Natural Born Citizen". Under the law at the time of his birth, Ted Cruz clearly qualified as an NBC.
The only arguments I've heard disputing this are based on the silly notions that Congress has no right to write immigration laws, that English common law takes priority over U.S. law, and because they just don't want it to be true.