And those "persons" are aliens. Remember, the law in question is "The Immigration and Nationality Act".
Do citizens immigrate here or do aliens?
Good grief, not this again.
There was a time period within U.S. history where that would be true enough (1802 to 1855 if I read the majority decision from Rogers v. Bellei right and I think I do) yet after 1855 that condition change back, step by step (accumulated changes) towards how it was before legislation introduced that consideration. You know, like back towards the concepts expressed within the 1790 law?
By the time Cruz was born there was not (that I know of) a scrap left within the laws themselves which stated that persons born within the circumstance which he was were "aliens" at birth.
Take note that not all persons mentioned within that act were to be considered "aliens" --- or else show me something FROM WITHIN the TEXT OF THE LAW. The effort to assert that wording of the Act's heading implied "born an alien" for the same exact class of persons otherwise clearly said to fall into category of citizens at birth is an asinine argument.
The law, even under that heading does stipulate who is a citizen, even from at birth.
It is highly contradictory ---one has to tie the law into pretzel knots--- to get to place of simultaneously claiming "alien" and "citizen" in regards to the same person at the same precise moment.
Dragging in a whole bunch of "because of this" that, and the other thing, from carefully selected past Supreme Court decisions, coupled with bouncing back to futile efforts to attempt re-application of statutory language which NO LONGER EXISTS as active and binding law is Birthism insanity.
Do you really think that such a jackass contradiction like "the person was both an alien, and born a citizen -- AT THE SAME TIME" would pass muster in a court?
The laws have changed over the last couple of hundred years. Those changes is where the contradictions arise from, except (and now its your turn "to Remember") --- that once laws are changed, then if and when the old statutory language is done away with --- it no longer applies. It doesn't hang around like a ghost that can still ~weirdly~ in bizarre fashion contribute flesh as it were, for once stricken from the statutes, reworded however it shall be from then on --- when whatever it is that was being done away with is gone ---it is as good as dead and buried.
I do feel here as if I've been confronting zombies. Two to the forehead is supposed to do it. (I saw that on t.v. once).
Children born abroad of U.S. parents are neither aliens or immigrants.
Instead when brought back to live within the U.S. the parents are returning to their own homeland and naturally enough bringing their (minor) children with them. DUH.
Spare me any further birther nonsense derived reasoning, rationale, and questions.
I could hope that these sort would be the worst that (DNC-backed?) plaintiffs could throw at Senator Cruz.
If so, I'm pretty confidant an adequetly decent lawyer could murder 'da bums --- which would leave only crazy-stupid-as-a-craphouse 'Rat judges to worry about...