No where in the Naturalization act of 1790 does citizenship flow exclusively through the father as you have asserted. See post 38 for more details.
The real question here is “WHAT DOES GOD WANT US TO DO.”
That casts these quarrels in quite a different light.
In some cases you can come up with a different read depending on what authorities you have gone to. In which case the conventional answer is the court. Which has in the case of Obama just denied standing, never actually answering the question.
We had this argument last night and you continue to be wrong. First, the INA of 1790 was repealed so all you can argue is intent. Second, any cursory research of the subject will produce numerous references to the fact that blacks, Indians, and women were specifically excluded from the Act. So we are back to the meaning of what is a NBC.
What I find hilarious is all the Cruz supporters on here arguing that he’s a NBC and it doesn’t matter because Obama was elected. Well let’s see. Obama was a 4 yr US senator at the time of election with zero accomplishments in the Senate, born of a U.S. mother and foreign national father, with a questionable place of birth. In Cruz, we would have a 4 year US senator with no record of accomplishments in the Senate, born of a U.S. mother and a foreign national father, only we know Ted was born in a foreign country. Sounds just like Obama, except he had the moxy to in all likelihood forge a birth certificate. How many of the posters on here were arguing for Obama to produce his b/c or arguing that he wasn’t a NBC. It’s funny how principles go out the window when you want to hope for something bad enough.
This is very simple for Ted. Produce his U.S passport or his CRBA and we are probably finished with this debate. Ted has produced neither which means he probably doesn’t have them.