Let’s list the types of citizens:
1. Natural-born.
2. Naturalized.
3. ???
What’s your point?
I’m not “fully convinced”, and this isn’t about “belief” it’s about reason. I’m open to a reasonable refutation of my point, as well as new facts or analysis.
The column I linked above in comment #70 has some excellent points about what the Founders meant.
Yes, it’s about reason and knowledge of history and what our Founders meant by “natural born citizen” as distinct from “citizen.” A baby born of one or two foreign nationals on American soil is not a natural born citizen. According to the 14th Amendment, they are citizens. We need to revoke the “anchor baby” provision of the 14th A.
My point is that there isn’t a third type, and he certainly isn’t the second type, so he must be the first type.
What makes you think he isn't the second type? Let me show you a piece of the US Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....Article I, Section 8, Clause 4
"Naturalization" is the process of making something "like natural." It is not the same thing as being "natural."
Ted Cruz owes his citizenship to the fact that Congress passed a law in 1934 which "naturalized" at birth, all who were born to at least one American Parent. (provided the parent met the criteria in the law, and provided the naturalized child also adhered to the requirements of the law. Aldo Mario Bellei in "Rogers v Bellei, did not, and thus lost his conditional citizenship. )
"Natural citizens" do not need Congress to pass a law for them. They are "natural" citizens.
I’m not “fully convinced”, and this isn’t about “belief” it’s about reason. I’m open to a reasonable refutation of my point, as well as new facts or analysis.
Fair enough. If the meaning of "natural born citizen" was understood in 1787 by all the founders, then it certainly couldn't have been based on a 1934 law.
Looking at it this way the children born to a citizen parent on foreign soil must be naturalized citizens, because Congress has passed laws regarding them.
Minor v Happerstat notes that there is agreement that children born of 2 citizen parents on American soil are natural born citizens. It also notes that there are doubts as to the status of those born on foreign soil. It was not necessary to resolve those doubts for the case in question.
Note that Congress at one time attempted to define natural born citizens and address the issue of a citizen giving birth on foreign soil. Some people in Congress thought that being born in the country trumped all else. Others challenged that, claiming that a child born to citizen parents should be a citizen no matter where he was born.
A few years later a Supreme Court Case pretty much nullified this law, and Congress passed a similar law, but dropped the term natural born citizen and used instead, the word citizen.
Fact of the matter is the issue has yet to be resolved definitively by any court, which is acknowledged in State Department instructions to diplomatic personnel responsible for assisting people in other countries regarding their own status for citizenship.
These documents also note that it was also not definite that natural born citizenship acquired by statute was truly eligible for the presidency.
Now reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of this issue. Fact is it could legitimately be called a gray area. While John Jay may have had a specific in mind, that didn't need elaboration in his letter regarding the requirement, I have not seen anything where he actually defined it.
Instead of arguing over it, maybe it would be a good idea to decide exactly what the definition should be, and pass a constitutional amendment adopting said definition.