There are only two kinds of citizens: natural born citizens and naturalized citizens, the latter being those made citizens by statute, not nature.
That is not the relevant distinction. The relevant distinction is that the first are citizens by virtue of the circumstances of their birth and are citizens from the moment of birth, and the second become citizens later in life through their own intentional act.
Mr. Cruz falls into the latter category, having been granted citizenship solely based on the provisions of the 1952 Immigration and NATURALIZATION Act.
Senator Cruz falls into the first category because he was a citizen of the United States from the moment he drew breath. The fact that a statute confirms this citizenship status is not relevant. In our Country, the enactment of statutes takes place under the umbrella of the Constitution. Every single word of the US Code is under the authority of the Constitution and is intended to further it purpose and design. It is absolutely permissible and natural that a statue of the United States may elaborate and specify details to be used to determine whether circumstances support classification into one or the other of the two classes of citizenship established by the Constitution. That's the very purpose of a statute.
For all other purposes than the qualifications for president, there is no real difference. A naturalized citizen has been made as if he were natural born, with all attendant privileges and immunities.
Yes, indeed.
Before 1934 no one in circumstances identical to Cruz would have been granted citizenship, much less have been considered natural born citizens.
Do you think we owe all of those people an apology for having deprived of their natural born American citizenship, by mere statute?
Just using your reasoning.
Logically stated, John Valentine.
The notion of natural birth entailing birthplace (i.e., in one of the United States or the nation’s territories or even the nation’s military bases or embassies) is preposterous. Such a requirement would obviate the U. S. citizenship of any child born of a U. S. citizen parent serving the nation OR NOT anywhere in the world. If “serving” is the operative word, what qualifies as “service”? Military? Legation? Trade? U. S. business interests? Academic study? Vacation? Who or what would rule on meeting the “service” categorical requirement?
Location of birth, for any reason whatsoever, has to be the least compelling, most ephemeral, of all imagined requirements for “natural birth” citizenship. If location of birth WERE implicit in the Constitution, what mother-to-be would dare leave the country, knowing that her child would be ineligible for citizenship until he was able to master the requirements for naturalized citizenship? Would she knowingly deprive him of the benefits of citizenship (such as they are) up until that time?
BECAUSE the U. S. hasn’t required naturalization of a foreign-born child of a U. S. citizen, we should be able to deduce that an additional requirement for citizenship is not necessary.
And, by your reasoning, if there ARE only two categories of citizenship, the child of a U. S. citizen, born ANYwhere, is a natural-born citizen.