Replies

Yes you are correct the founders would be proud .... How do I know for certain?

I know because we have a record of what the founder DID. And what they did is recorded in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Because the founders, in the very first acts of congress said that those born beyond the boundaries and to citizens were as natural born as long as their fathers had resided in the US. And since Sen Cruz’s father did reside in the US, Sen Cruz was born a US citizen at birth and qualifies as an NBC from birth ... according to the founders.

“As long as their fathers had resided in the US”

So all you have to do is to get non citizen daddy to “reside” in the United States and bingo your eligible? Come on that doesnt even pass the smell test.

Fundamental lack of understanding.

You need to look a bit further. The Founders repealed that act almost immediately. The new act which was finalized in 1795 was specifically called the repeal of 1790 Act. It was identical to the earlier act except there was no reference to Natural born. The correspondence at the time specifically referenced that the 1790 act was flawed because there was an erroneous granting of Natural born status to children born abroad.

I know because we have a record of what the founder DID. And what they did is recorded in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Because the founders, in the very first acts of congress said that those born beyond the boundaries and to citizens were as natural born as long as their fathers had resided in the US. And since Sen Cruz’s father did reside in the US, Sen Cruz was born a US citizen at birth and qualifies as an NBC from birth ... according to the founders.

Totally wrong. The act was superseded in 1795 to remove that erroneous use of the phrase, "shall be considered as natural born Citizens:" and changed to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

The official historical notes of the first and fourth Congress of the United States document this change was done intentionally to correct the error of the transcribing clerk in 1790 with James Madison's authority.

There you go again! The Act of 1790 was REPEALED, VOIDED by the Act of 1795 which realized the mistake and took out the NBC portion and was never raised again. Children born overseas to U.S. citizens do acquire U.S. citizenship but not NBC! Why? Because they receive naturalization upon showing certain documents to the American Consul abroad and are issued a CRBA. Naturalized children cannot be considered natural born.

My own children cannot run for President because they were born in London and as part of the process the Consul advised me of their ineligibility. Everyone knew this 50 years ago. The dumbing down of America has taken its effect - even on people who should know better.