And there you go again IGNORING what the founders actually did institute as law. It is the clearest example that we have of the founders intent.
But lets follow the path of where your logic leads
Naturalization act of 1790 was passed by the founders and that clearly shows that they were exercising there authority under Article I Section 8 clause 4
Then the 1795 act was repealed and replaced
And the next
And the next
And so on and so forth until we get to:
USC Title 8 Section 1401 subsection G which clearly states that Sen Cruz was a US Citizen at birth.
Further, USc Title 8 Section 1101 section A part (23) says that naturalization ONLY occurs after birth. Sen Cruz has never been and has never needed to be naturalized because he was a US Citizen at birth.
Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen at birth. He has a Canadian birth certificate. When he shows a US birth certificate then he can be said to be a US citizen at birth. When the State Department talks about a child that meets the statutes of Naturalization being considered as a citizen at birth the phrase has a legal definition. It means that although the child is was not a citizen at birth, for the purposes of the act he/she will be considered one. They make the distinction quite clear by stating that meeting the statues for “citizenship at birth” does not imply that they would meet that criterion for other circumstances.
It took me a bit to locate the reference for my earlier response to your post.
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever.”
For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:
(1) Naturalization of an individual adult;
(2) Derivative naturalization acquired through the naturalization of another
(spouses and children);
(3) Collective naturalization, the naturalization of large groups of non-citizens
that has occasionally taken place through legislative enactments following
the acquisition of new territory or other historical event;
(4) Expeditious naturalization; and
(5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.
Your way of looking at it is not unique to you but it is flawed. Ted Cruz was not a citizen until someone proved to the State Department that he was entitled to be a citizen because he and his citizen parent met the statutory conditions laid out by Congress and applicable at the time of his birth.
Children born abroad to a citizen parent have not always been deemed to be citizens, think of the children born to our soldiers in Vietnam who are not in the main deemed eligible for citizenship. A child with a citizen mother but not a citizen Father would not have been entitled to citizenship early in our countries history because women could not pass on that right. As the citizenship statutes evolved and changed a child might or might not gain citizenship based on the number of years the parent had lived in the US prior to the birth and after a certain age.
If indeed any child with citizen parentage on either side born anywhere in the world became instantly a citizen at birth, not only would it be a disaster but we wouldn’t need 10’s of pages of statutes to decide which children were eligible. The children would still need to prove their connection to the citizen parent and that parent prove their current citizenship.
So it is patently false to suggest that Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country to a non-US father and a possibly still US citizen mother was a citizen at birth without needing to prove his circumstances conformed to the statutes in force at the time of his birth. There needs to be a paper trail.
If his right to citizenship was so proved then he would be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as anyone who gained citizenship under the 14th amendment. Just like any other citizen granted citizenship from the 14th amendment he would not be eligible to run for the offices of the Presidency/Vice Presidency.
No statute can make one “natural born”, it can make one a citizen, but not a “natural born” citizen.
The subject of whether jus soli or jus sanguinis applies to the United States came up in a debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 1789, when James Madison said:
It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.
How is that for founder intention?