“Once again you post something not relevant to you argument, what you posted just establishes that Cruz is a US Citizen at birth. It does not address Natural Born. You then post your opinion without citing any settled case law.”
All you have to do is show us a consistent pattern of persons being born abroad in foreign jurisdictions and foreign allegiance without the protection of diplomatic immunity who acquired U.S. citizenship without being naturalized at birth and/or after by the authority of a U.S. statute.
“You post “At no time in Anglo-American history has a child born abroad been lawfully recognized as a natural born citizen†Please post the case where the child was denied this right, that is what your trying to imply with this passage”
During the periods of 1776 to 1790 and from 1802 to 1855 the child of a U.S. citizen father born abroad did not acquire U.S. citizenship unless the State in which the father was a U.S. citizen explicitly provided for such citizenship, and that citizenship was a naturalized at birth citizenship,, not natural born citizenship. The Naturalization Act of 1855 changed the statutory law to allow the children born abroad with fathers who became U.S. citizens after 1802 to transmit U.S. citizenship to those children under certain conditions. This legislative act was used to remedy the complaints that such children had been denied naturalization at birth and any U.S. citizenship and had to naturalize after birth like the alien immigrants without a U.S. father.
The case of Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles, 236 F. 2d 622 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1956 resulted in a decision where the court observed that children of U.S. citizens born abroad were naturalized U.S. citizens and not native U.S. citizens.
Ok, Thank you, I will look at the case you cited. But give me a few hours to reply, have to get some sleep