All of which I've seen before.
Well, there’s a third state here: “Not a Citizen”.
Are you suggesting Cruz is not a citizen? If not, then on what basis is he a naturalized citizen?
The fourteenth amendment clearly muddies the water: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
True, but irrelevant. If Cruz had been born in the U.S. then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
This is an act of the legislature, and therefore confers/institutes citizenship — which can only be done to naturalized citizens.
So then everyone born in the U.S. since the ratification of the 14th Amendment is a naturalized citizen? Who knew?
At the “crazy end” of reasoning this obliterates Natural Born citizenship, making all naturalized citizens; but it certainly isn’t unreasonable to examine the issue — especially since the elites are working so hard on destroying the requirements set forth in the Constitution.
Nobody is disuputing the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen. What is in dispute is this crazy concept that the definition of natural-born citizen is some sort of unwritten law. It is entirely the province of Congress to determine who is a natural born citizen. Since they are empowered by the Constitution with creating uniform laws of naturalization it stands to reason that they need to define who needs to be naturalized and who does not.
>> Which is why I gave you that info-link.
>
> All of which I’ve seen before.
It’s an interesting argument.
>> Well, there’s a third state here: “Not a Citizen”.
>
> Are you suggesting Cruz is not a citizen? If not, then on what basis is he a naturalized citizen?
No; don’t be an idiot — I was remarking that there’s more than just “naturalized citizen” and “natural born citizen” that has to be considered.
>> The fourteenth amendment clearly muddies the water: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
>
> True, but irrelevant. If Cruz had been born in the U.S. then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Probably.
>> This is an act of the legislature, and therefore confers/institutes citizenship — which can only be done to naturalized citizens.
>
> So then everyone born in the U.S. since the ratification of the 14th Amendment is a naturalized citizen? Who knew?
There’s interesting legal consequences if that is answered ‘yes’.
I’m not entirely certain — especially since the 14th Amendment wasn’t properly/Constitutionally ratified:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
>> At the “crazy end” of reasoning this obliterates Natural Born citizenship, making all naturalized citizens; but it certainly isn’t unreasonable to examine the issue — especially since the elites are working so hard on destroying the requirements set forth in the Constitution.
>
> Nobody is disuputing the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen. What is in dispute is this crazy concept that the definition of natural-born citizen is some sort of unwritten law. It is entirely the province of Congress to determine who is a natural born citizen. Since they are empowered by the Constitution with creating uniform laws of naturalization it stands to reason that they need to define who needs to be naturalized and who does not.
But if Congress gets to decide who is natural-born and who is not, what’s to stop them from declaring that only them and their elite families are natural born citizens? — Such a power would utterly undermine the intent of the founders to keep from having a nobility.