Read the decision dummy. The findings of SCOTUS are conclusive. They said that Bellei was NATURALIZED by statute.
Rogers v. Bellei (1971) the SCOTUS already has held that Ted Cruz is merely a statutory born citizen and not a true natural born Citizen.
Mr. Bellei was born and lived the first few years of his life as an American citizen identically situated to Ted Cruz (foreign born, foreign resident, alien father, expat mother). As an adult, Bellei had his citizenship forcibly stripped for not meeting USA residency requirements. This could only occur if Mr. Bellei was not a natural born Citizen (in fact, he was just a mere born citizen).
Note that citizenship can only be removed at one’s behest AND only if confirmed twice AND only with the required forms to renounce it AND only by providing proof that one will not be left stateless. Bellei did none of those. He did not give his citizenship up voluntarily (indeed he went to court to retain it). The fact that the government could take it away in spite of all that proves that he was not born a natural born Citizen.
Bellei sued the government in order to retain the USA citizenship he was born with, but the SCOTUS upheld the original decision with the dissent noting that he was not even protected under the penumbra of the 14th Amendment. The key point here is that Cruz and Bellei were of exactly the same citizenship status at birth, therefore Cruz is also not a natural born Citizen (a status which is solely and entirely determined at the moment of birth).
Bellei is an exact proxy for Cruz. And the SCOTUS unequivocally held that Bellei was merely a born citizen, thereby excluding any possibility that he be a natural born Citizen. It’s game over for Cruz because Trump has the standing to bring this to the court’s attention. Do you really think he won’t if it comes to that?
Also note that without the change in naturalization law passed in 1934 allowing female citizens to pass on derivative citizenship to their children born outside the USA, Ted Cruz would not be a citizen at all. He is a statutory born citizen, not a natural born Citizen as the Constitution demands of presidents.
Derivative born citizenship is statutory citizenship granted by congress. It is a conditional man-made privilege, not a natural right like natural born Citizenship and, thus, may be revoked as in the case of Bellei. Only if it has been perfected by naturalization does it fall under the protective penumbra of the Fourteenth Amendment and become irrevocable (but still not natural).
Even though Ted Cruz’s citizenship was perfected when his mother later (probably) filed a CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) for her son, he still was born under the exact same circumstances as Mr. Bellei, so Cruz was even less than naturalized at birth (just like Mr. Bellei). There is no way Ted Cruz can be a natural born Citizen because that status is irrevocable and Mr. Bellei (same status as Cruz) actually ended up having his citizenship taken away from him against his will. This proves that neither Bellei nor Cruz were born as natural born Citizens.
The Constitution’s presidential eligibility requirements have never changed and cannot be changed by mere act of congress (only by amendment). Cruz’s birth circumstances are the same as Bellei’s and Bellei’s birth citizenship status was so tenuous as to be later removed altogether. A true natural born Citizen can never have citizenship removed — even for high treason. This point is worth repeating until it fully sinks in.
Ted Cruz knows he is not eligible, yet he continues to accept campaign donations. That is fraud. You cannot support this man and support the Constitution.
“Note that citizenship can only be removed at one’s behest AND only if confirmed twice AND only with the required forms to renounce it AND only by providing proof that one will not be left stateless.”
FALSE.
A person’s natural born citizenship can be taken away, but it does require due process of law. That’s why there was a court case about it.
“Read the decision dummy. The findings of SCOTUS are conclusive. They said that Bellei was NATURALIZED by statute.”
No, it did not.
I have read the Rogers v. Bellei case, and unlike you I am an attorney and I understand what I am reading.
Bellei was a natural born citizen.
Your making the ASSUMPTION again that natural born citizen cannot be defined by statute.
You are trying to bend the facts to fit your assumption.
Congress has defined who is a natural born citizen since 1790 — by statute.
Being a natural born citizen pursuant to the definitions of a statute is the ONLY way to be a natural born citizen.
“Bellei sued the government in order to retain the USA citizenship he was born with, but the SCOTUS upheld the original decision with the dissent noting that he was not even protected under the penumbra of the 14th Amendment.”
That is absolute nonsense.
The 14th Amendment did protect Bellei. It gave him a right to due process — to his day in court.
Why do you think the case was in the courts?
Bellei was entitled to a court case before his citizenship was taken away.
That’s the same rights that you have.
If you do some act that under U.S. law allows your citizenship to be taken away, you are entitled to your day in court.
Bellei was a natural born citizen at birth.
Otherwise, what was there to be taken away?