...any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application...the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
How can the New Terrapin Gazette say this act would make Cruz a natural born citizen? The act seems unclear. It is saying that the father must have been a U.S. resident but seems to imply that residency may have lead to U.S. citizenry. But it seems unclear. If the father is required to be a U.S. citizen for their foreign-born child to be a natural born citizen, then that leaves Cruz out.
Was this act ever repealed or replaced? Since it was passed two years after the Constitution was ratified, it is persuasive as to original understanding of the term "natural born citizen" as far as it goes, but it is unclear about the status of the father other than U.S. residency.
Meaning: they're not, but will be treated as such.
It was repealed 1795 and applies to Naturalization, not to natural born citizen.
The first naturalization act in 1790 proves that the founders regarded the issue of who is a natural born citizen to be within the purview of Congress. No, the law is no longer in force. It was re-written in 1795. The law that applies to Cruz is the naturalization act of 1952. Under that he was clearly born a citizen.
The debate comes down to whether the distinction between natural born and naturalized citizens is based on legislative acts. Some say natural born is strictly two citizen parents born in the US, and any other citizenship is “naturalized” according to whatever Congress legislates. Others say that Congress can legislate who is a citizen at birth and who can become a citizen later through whatever process Congress decides, and that being born a citizen is being a natural born citizen. While both views have merit, I think the 1780 act shows the second is what most of the founders understood the Constitution to mean when they ratified it. There is no record of dissent over the wording of this act.
Vattel wrote “The Law of Nations”, which was almost certainly the context of the founders’ choice to use the term. Vattel’s definition was children born in country of citizen parents. He also used the word “native” as the equivalent. However, he clarified that citizenship at birth was primarily based on the father’s citizenship, rather than place of birth.
My view is that Congress has the power to determine which of these factors are required to be a citizen at birth. I think if Vattel were alive today he would call Cruz a natural born citizen. If Cruz had been born in the early years of this Republic, under similar circumstances, he would not have been considered a natural born citizen. The reason for the change is how Congress and the nation has changed when it comes to women voting and holding office, and also our acceptance of dual citizenship.
Yes, it goes to the original understanding of the term "natural born Citizen", but not for the reason you believe. Anyone who reads the following article in it's entirety will realize the massive fraud that has been perpetrated by the media and major political parties against the American people.
The linguistic and logical aspects of the term "Natural Born Citizen"