Canadian law says otherwise:
http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/canadian-citizenship-act-1947
Chapter 15, Section 5A is very clear: “A person born after the commencement of this Act(the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947) is a natural born Canadian citizen-—”
Cruz was born in Calgary Canada and thus was born a natural born Canadian citizen.
Because of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, passed by the US Congress, Cruz’s mother could impart American citizenship to him because and only because she met certain statutory requirements for age and residency time in the Us prior to Cruz’s birth.
Thus, Cruz is an American citizen by statute, and not natural born.
Judge Pellegrini’s statement that any citizen is a natural born citizen has no statutory nor historical precedent. This is not even asserted in Wong, 1898.
Well, judges have erred before.
Err or an intentional grounds for appeal Been done before just sayin
True exit82, but not many appear interested in truth these days.
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco and raised in California took a trip to China to visit his parent’s home. His parents were “Domiciled” residents. They probably would have naturalized had Chinese law permitted. The Supreme Court ruled, citing and quoting Minor v. Happersett for the definition of who were natural born citizens, that Wong Kim was not a citizen, but by the 14th Amendment, he was a naturalized citizen. That, if anyone cares, is law that has never been reversed. Obama, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley were naturalized and not natural born.
Cruz was only naturalized by U.S. code passed in the 1930s, making him a citizen at birth, even though he was not born on our soil. He was NATURALIZED at birth. Being natural born is being born on our soil to parents who were citizens at the time of birth, Minor v. Happersett, 1875, cited as precedent in Wong Kim Ark, 1798, and in Perkins v. Elg, 1939, and cited in dozens of other Supreme Court Cases.
Congress has only the authority to create naturalized citizens. U.S. code only once even mentioned natural born citizens, in the 1790 Naturalization Act, and it was entirely rescinded in 1795, signed by Washington and Madison. The term natural born in 1790 was replaced by the term “citizen”, under the authority granted Congress by the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, “an Uniform Rule for Naturalization.”
State courts have invented all sorts of nonsense to support their candidate, Obama, and are doing the same here. Six months before he died Scalia noted that there were currently only two “originalists” on the court, himself and Justice Thomas. Now there is one. The USSC avoided the issue in 2010 in Kirchner v. Obama because the two Obama appointees voted on certiorari, even though they stood to lose their lifetime appointees had the case not resulted in the overturning of Minor v. Happersett, Perkins v. Elg, and even the 14th Amendment, since the 14th only created naturalized citizens, and would now, with subsequent U.S. Code, turn anchor babies into natural born citizens.
The popular phrase is “post Constitutional America”. We are there. We are no longer a nation based upon law. Law is anything the political class wants it to be. The polemic gets sillier and sillier. Every U.S. Senator signed Senate Resolution 511 in April 2008 confirming Judge Michael Chertoff’s testimony that a natural born citizen must be born to parents who are citizens. Dozens of Supreme Court Cases add the “Jus Soli”, requirement, born on our soil, as did Obama and Cruz’ constitutional law professor Larry Tribe in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Senate Res 511. With a strong presidency, our framers agreed without debate with John Jay and George Washington, who modified Hamilton’s first pass at eligibility and required a natural born citizen. Madison explained why there aren’t term definitions in the Constitution. The meanings of words change. Interpretation must be made using the language familiar to the framers of the Constitution.