They are both perfectly eligible to run for President, on fulfilling the other qualifications: 35 years of age, and 14 years a resident of the United States.
There is a fairly large contingent of mythspinners here, who claim it takes birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. Some of them post literally dozens of pages of fallacious arguments. I am in process of trying, slowly, to document these. I've got 39 so far, and have no doubt that I'm nowhere near done.
Early legal authorities and other writers are virtually unanimous in saying that being a "natural born citizen" or eligible to the Presidency meant or required being "born on US soil" or "born a citizen."
As far as I'm aware, the ONLY early "authority" who said differently was a physician, historian and politican named David Ramsay, who at least sort of argued otherwise... although he really wasn't even arguing about the children born in the after-Revolution United States of immigrant parents.
Ramsay was running a sore-loser campaign to try and disqualify one of the guys who beat him for a seat in the US House of Representatives. That was the obvious purpose of his little "treatise on citizenship." And he was voted down 36 to 1 in a vote led by Father of the Constitution James Madison. So Ramsay's opinion was officially judged by one of our most prominent Founding Fathers as being absolutely worthless.
Against this there are literally dozens of more competent voices, including a few that are abundantly clear, like that of William Rawle, early American legal expert who met regularly with Washington and Franklin to discuss politics and law, and who was in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention:
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
Here is a more prominent authority on the subject. The father of the 14th Amendment, Representative John Bingham stated this on the House floor:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Senator Ted Cruz’s father owed allegiance to foreign sovereignty, namely Cuba. According to Representative John Bingham, Cruz is not a Constitutional natural born Citizens eligible for Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
Yes, Jeff, as far as you are concerned, if the shadow of an American has ever fallen across someone, they are a "natural citizen." Your theory allows "Birth Tourism" (mostly Chinese mothers flying to the United States to have their children so the children can get "American" citizenship.) and "Anchor Babies."
That your theory is stark raving insanity doesn't faze you. It's like Abortion and Gay marriage. It can have utterly ridiculous legal arguments behind it, but you'll support it because some judge says so.
There is a fairly large contingent of mythspinners here, who claim it takes birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. Some of them post literally dozens of pages of fallacious arguments. I am in process of trying, slowly, to document these. I've got 39 so far, and have no doubt that I'm nowhere near done.
No Jeff, it is you who keep trying to maintain the fiction that Anchor babies and Birth tourism is a legitimate application of our law, and this DESPITE all the evidence which has been presented to you to make you aware that this was NOT the intention of the 14th amendment.
I'm beginning to think it would save a lot of time by simply calling you a liar every time I see you. You see people, Jeff knowingly and INTENTIONALLY Lied about what John Bingham said regarding Aliens having children in this country. Lying doesn't bother Jeff at all. He does it routinely.
Early legal authorities and other writers are virtually unanimous in saying that being a "natural born citizen" or eligible to the Presidency meant or required being "born on US soil" or "born a citizen."
Another Lie by Jeff. Aristotle contradicts you. Dr. David Ramsey Contradicts you, James Monroe Contradicts You, Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736 contradicts you. Publius (Likely James Madison) Contradicts you. Justice Washington and Justice Marshall contradicts you. A whole host of legal authorities contradict you, including John Bingham, father of the 14th amendment, even HE contradicts you, but you lie about him. H*ll, you lie about ALL OF THEM.
Ramsay was running a sore-loser campaign to try and disqualify one of the guys who beat him for a seat in the US House of Representatives. That was the obvious purpose of his little "treatise on citizenship." And he was voted down 36 to 1 in a vote led by Father of the Constitution James Madison. So Ramsay's opinion was officially judged by one of our most prominent Founding Fathers as being absolutely worthless.
Jeff is just lying again. Not going to detail it. He does it so often that it is simply too much trouble to address all his efforts to lie and mislead.
Against this there are literally dozens of more competent voices, including a few that are abundantly clear, like that of William Rawle, early American legal expert who met regularly with Washington and Franklin to discuss politics and law, and who was in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention:
Yeah, Rawle Again. The British Loyalist who was on the OTHER SIDE during the War, and who was trained in BRITISH law, not the unique aspects of American law which is a separation from British Servitude. (Chained to the land by Feudal law.)
Jeff is just lying again.
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
And here he is quoting British Loyalist Rawle, citing British Law, and applying it to America. I expect Rawle is the reason why Attorney-General Black had this to say on July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover.
“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”