There are only two kinds of citizens: natural born citizens and naturalized citizens, the latter being those made citizens by statute, not nature.
Mr. Cruz falls into the latter category, having been granted citizenship solely based on the provisions of the 1952 Immigration and NATURALIZATION Act.
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.
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.
“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.”
No, that is incorrect. A person acquiring U.S. citizenship by the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Act is liable to the revocation of that grant of U.S. citizenship under the stated conditions of the statute, whereas an actual natural born citizen is born with and not granted at birth with U.S. citizenship. This type of difference is traditional in U.S. and British law ever since the English Naturalization Act of 1541. in other wrods, being “considered as” a natural born subject or as a natural born citizen does not accord the naturalized at birth citizen the same rights and immunities as an actual natural born citizen.
Do you want Congress and the President to restrict immigration?
If so, under what provision of the Constitution do they have the authority to do so?