Again ask yourself what is the purpose of the NBC clause and does allowing a person with duel citizenship who by definition may be equally loyal to another country serve that purpose?
Aaron Burr had duel citizenship.
1) The constitution doesn’t say but the framer’s understanding combined with the statutes enacted from the first Congress indicate that the phrase means both birthed abroad to American parents and birthed in the territory regardless of their parent’s citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.
2) So the one remaining question remains is if Cruz was a citizen at birth. And that’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which citizens became nationals and citizens at birth. Citizenship goes to the baby of one American parent who has spend a certain number of years here. Someone must have a single parent who has resided in the US for at least 10 years including 5 after the age of 14 in order to be considered a natural born citizen. Cruz’s mother was born in Delaware. Is Delaware part of America? I think so.
3) With the 1790 Naturalization Act - Cruz would also qualify and there were a lot of Founders involved in that act.
So can we cut it out? No. People don’t want to cut it out. They want to keep it up posting some crap on my posts or somebody else’s: Don’t you read the constitution? YES. It says natural born citizen! Yes. Well look at it. I did read it. It says natural born citizen. He’s born of an American mother. Yeah, well it doesn’t mean that. Well, what does it mean? Hey, haven’t you read the book by Coo-Coo Clock over here. Enough already.
If you shoot with the same "precision" as you think, you have already shot off both of your feet.
You start with an OPINION, PERIOD.
You back it up by calling people that disagree with your opinion, nonsensical and retarded.
Lastly, you ax a question {duel citizenship} about which you cannot possibly know the answer.
There are multiple sides to this question and it's been argued here at FR ad nauseam, but you argue like a demonRAT, simply call people names.
How can walk without feet?
Before insinuating people are retarded you might want to fix the “soul” thingy in your post to sole.
Have full sympathy for the basic premise that dual citizenship points to the possibility of divided loyalties in an executive.
Strictly speaking, however, dual citizenship can’t be cited as an absolute bar to the office of POTUS.
The way I see it is this: Any country that wants to (say, as part of an effort to repopulate with potentially child-bearing young people) can pass a naturalization law that deems you a full citizen of that country solely because a GRANDPARENT of yours was born there or was a citizen there. A U.S. citizen who also finds himself in possession of citizenship in a foreign country with such a liberal naturalization law as the one just described could easily meet the strict NBC definition set forth in Minor v. Happersett (born in the United States to two U.S. Citizen parents).
Would you disqualify such a one from running for or serving as POTUS? I wouldn’t. One way to think of it is: How far would we want to go with that kind of strictness?
The way I see it, a country that uses the Minor v. Happersett definition as a local screen to ward off potential divided loyalty in the national government’s chief executive has put a full generation’s buffer between the individual in question and any potentially strong source of pluckable “Old Country” heartstrings. That would seem to be sufficient, considering how young people tend to go about their lives in any given country (and particularly in the U.S.).
Think about it. Grandparents don’t typically have any independent mojo when it comes to the minds and hearts of their grandchildren when it comes to where the same can be led in terms of national loyalty. If the intervening generation felt sufficiently strongly about their current homeland to actually make the plunge and secure U.S. citizenship prior to the birth of the grandchild in question, the issue will almost certainly have been settled before it ever even comes up. The child will surely, meaning, without any serious question, end up being a U.S. patriot, if he has any potential at all to hold or display such feelings (as most people do).