Replies

No, the law needs to define who is a citizen at birth (thus not requiring some form of "naturalization") compared to who is not a citizen, and thus require some form of naturalization.

The law defines an alien as the one in need of naturalization "at birth" and having citizenship conferred upon them, not citizens, as they already have citizenship.

And how many angels can dance upon the head of that pin?

I think the danger aspect would nicely describe what the Founders were getting at. No way an unpopular president could get ousted short of impeachment, by a citizenship-related underhanded move.

The law defines an alien as the one in need of naturalization "at birth" and having citizenship conferred upon them,

Defining who is an alien. Well ok. That does not apply to those who are in classification of being a citizen at birth.

The wording which does apply to Cruz is "acquired" at birth, and "shall be citizens at birth". Hold fast to those concepts, carry them with you wherever you may roam within the codes and definitions.

The acquiring is from the U.S. citizen parent, although under law which not only acknowledges that it is AT BIRTH, but explicitly stipulates that it is from birth.

The first part of the above italicized sentence once again;

The law defines an alien as the one in need of naturalization "at birth"

Persons born abroad to a U.S citizen parent are not in need of naturalization. They are already citizens, at birth.

"...and having citizenship conferred upon them,"

Uh, excuse me, but the entire quote is defining those who are not citizens at birth, and who therefor if desiring to be a U.S. citizen, must indeed be naturalized.

I can hardly believe my own eyes reading the comments from birthers gone crusader against Cruz.

How about setting aside your own personal interests, even if those be along lines of "I said it, so now must search out evidence which will strengthen my case" (previous assertions) and try reading the codes and definitions while searching for the opposite of what you've been arguing.

Try to prove yourself wrong, try to see if what you've been saying can be falsified through taking a differing approach, a differing view, shorn of --- for lack of more apropos term perhaps--- what could be referred to as 'birther baggage'.

Perhaps; try taking my own responses, or else replies made on this thread by others which address the same issue more succinctly, and see if those can be seen to comport well with the statutes and definitions.

When it hits you between the eyes, keep reading, go over it again and again as many times as it takes ---