Trouble For Ted Cruz: Here's Why He Doesn't Meet The Natural Born Citizen Requirement

[Skylar]

Cruz was born under the 1952 Naturalization Act which superseded the 1934 act. Making your claims irrelevant.

Yes, it made Cruz a naturalized citizen at birth.

It supersedes the 1934 law.....which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

If it takes a 1952 Naturalization statute to make you a Citizen, you're not natural born, you're naturalized.

If your babble about the 1934 law was accurate, you wouldn't have had to abandon any mention of it. And start attacking the 1952 law.

You knew the 1952 law superceded the 1934 law. You just really hoped we didn't.

My previous post is accurate.

Your previous post was a rout. An abandonment of all your '1934' gibberish.

You ran.

 

[Skylar]

Skyler you don't understand.

I understand that I've asked you to show me the constitution's definition of 'natural born citizenship' 3 times now. And each time you awkwardly try to change the topic.

I understand that you have yet to show us a scintilla of actual evidence that Obama is constitutionally unqualified to be president. Oh, you'll gladly babble about 'demagoguery', 'agendas', how much you know, etc.

But evidence? Not a shred to back up any claim you've made regarding Obama's eligibility.

And that is why you fail. On the evidence.

As for the Constitutional issues all you have to do is pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it. Make an effort to understand it'

And yet when I ask you to simply show us the definition of natural born citizenship provided by the constitution, you run like my question had a butcher knife. And refuse to even discuss the topic. Giving excuse after excuse why you can't back up a single thing you've said.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to run.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Yes, it made Cruz a naturalized citizen at birth.

It supersedes the 1934 law.....which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

If it takes a 1952 Naturalization statute to make you a Citizen, you're not natural born, you're naturalized.

If your babble about the 1934 law was accurate, you wouldn't have had to abandon any mention of it. And start attacking the 1952 law.

You knew the 1952 law superceded the 1934 law. You just really hoped we didn't.

My previous post is accurate.

Your previous post was a rout. An abandonment of all your '1934' gibberish.

You ran.

Rubbish my Fogbow loving anti-American enemy.

 

[Skylar]

It supersedes the 1934 law.....which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

If it takes a 1952 Naturalization statute to make you a Citizen, you're not natural born, you're naturalized.

If your babble about the 1934 law was accurate, you wouldn't have had to abandon any mention of it. And start attacking the 1952 law.

You knew the 1952 law superceded the 1934 law. You just really hoped we didn't.

My previous post is accurate.

Your previous post was a rout. An abandonment of all your '1934' gibberish.

You ran.

Rubbish my Fogbow loving anti-American enemy.

Stephen, I've simply done more research on these topics than you have. You are a regurgitator. You repeat what someone else has told you to think. You don't actually research anything.

Me, I read. I research. I look at the actual law, the actual court rulings, the actual debates by the founders.

Which is why you consider me your enemy. I'm informed. And you require an ignorant audience.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

If it takes a 1952 Naturalization statute to make you a Citizen, you're not natural born, you're naturalized.

If your babble about the 1934 law was accurate, you wouldn't have had to abandon any mention of it. And start attacking the 1952 law.

You knew the 1952 law superceded the 1934 law. You just really hoped we didn't.

My previous post is accurate.

Your previous post was a rout. An abandonment of all your '1934' gibberish.

You ran.

Rubbish my Fogbow loving anti-American enemy.

Stephen, I've simply done more research on these topics than you have. You are a regurgitator. You repeat what someone else has told you to think. You don't actually research anything.

Me, I read. I research. I look at the actual law, the actual court rulings, the actual debates by the founders.

Which is why you consider me your enemy. I'm informed. And you require an ignorant audience.

Right LC!

 

[Just_Me]

In all honesty I tried to post a picture of some articles but the image was rejected as too large. Since I really don't know you it seams like too much effort to type all that out on a phone. I just have no interest in doing your research for you honestly. At this point in time it makes no difference. To do all that back research over again just for you seems like a fruitless effort when I already know you will summarily dismiss it because it does not fall in with your beliefs. You've already made your decision. You are really not open to an intellectual discussion. I could tell right away by the micro agressions that that this thread really dosn't want truth. They are only here to make sure the truth is not told. I'll be leaving now no offense but I am in the wrong board for my type of discussions.
I don't need this type of discussion at all. Nice to meet you. Perhaps in another type of forum.
BTW just a follow up note. You won't find the definition of Natural Born Citizen in a current copy of the Constitution. Only references to the status. Pick up an older copy you'll find it. It will be suddenly very clear what happened. Do not disregard the emotions involved during when the slavery issues were being resolved. They did not fully realise what they did. But it would only matter when someone tried to do an end run around it.
;-)
GN

 

[Syriusly]

I got my information before it became a political hot potato. And before the left started flooding us with misinformation. My information was unaccosted by political demogogary. So you go ahead and believe what you want. But I had the truth before you knew it was a question.

I.e. you got your information beamed directly into your mind by your Venusian overlord.

LOL

I will continue to believe the facts- you can believe whatever wierd ass birther fantasies you believe.

 

[Syriusly]

It supersedes the 1934 law.....which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

If it takes a 1952 Naturalization statute to make you a Citizen, you're not natural born, you're naturalized.

If your babble about the 1934 law was accurate, you wouldn't have had to abandon any mention of it. And start attacking the 1952 law.

You knew the 1952 law superceded the 1934 law. You just really hoped we didn't.

My previous post is accurate.

Your previous post was a rout. An abandonment of all your '1934' gibberish.

You ran.

Rubbish my Fogbow loving anti-American enemy.

LOL....funny stuff from our racist, anti-semite resident Birther(why does it turn out so many racists and anti-semites also happen to be Birthers?)

 

[Syriusly]

BTW just a follow up note. You won't find the definition of Natural Born Citizen in a current copy of the Constitution. Only references to the status. Pick up an older copy you'll find it. It will be suddenly very clear what happened

If you want to see an 'older copy' of the Constitution, the National Archives has one- and I have seen it.

Oddly enough it has the same wording as the ones available on line.

Of course the online ones usually have the Amendments included- but they distinguish between them.

There is no 'definition' of Natural born citizen in the Constitution- not on any of our Constitution's- but perhaps your super sekrit Birther Constitution is different. Maybe invisible ink on the back?

 

[Skylar]

In all honesty I tried to post a picture of some articles but the image was rejected as too large. Since I really don't know you it seams like too much effort to type all that out on a phone. I just have no interest in doing your research for you honestly.

The research I've done. What I'm asking you to do is back your argument with evidence.

And like you always do, you give me yet another sniveling excuse why you can't.

Shocker.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

To be "naturalized" doesn't infer you must go through a process to gain citizenship.

 

[Syriusly]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

To be "naturalized" doesn't infer you must go through a process to gain citizenship.

So are Puerto Ricans naturalized citizens?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

To be "naturalized" doesn't infer you must go through a process to gain citizenship.

So are Puerto Ricans naturalized citizens?

They are statutory Citizens, but not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens. That's why they can't run for president.

 

[Skylar]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law.

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

Gray found no exceptions. You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law.

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

Gray found no exceptions. You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.

I'm citing common law. Justice Grey is citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.​

What about Section II. of the opinion:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.​

How about when he cites Dicey:

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.​

How about Greys actual conclusion of Section II.:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

Knowing your response already, you will claim that isn't in the WKA decision, when it is directly quoted from it.

So lets keep going, Section III.:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

How about where he cites Kent:

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.​

Really, I could keep going, but the issue is clearly pointed out, there are few exceptions that are noted.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

SMFH​

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

To be "naturalized" doesn't infer you must go through a process to gain citizenship.

So are Puerto Ricans naturalized citizens?

Look to the 1917 Jones–Shafroth Act and the court case of Balzac v. Puerto Rico

 

[Syriusly]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

To be "naturalized" doesn't infer you must go through a process to gain citizenship.

So are Puerto Ricans naturalized citizens?

Look to the 1917 Jones–Shafroth Act and the court case of Balzac v. Puerto Rico

So they don't say- and you don't know.

 

[Skylar]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands.No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law.

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

Gray found no exceptions. You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.

I'm citing common law. Justice Grey is citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.​

What about Section II. of the opinion:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.​

How about when he cites Dicey:

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.​

How about Greys actual conclusion of Section II.:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

Knowing your response already, you will claim that isn't in the WKA decision, when it is directly quoted from it.

So lets keep going, Section III.:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

How about where he cites Kent:

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.​

Really, I could keep going, but the issue is clearly pointed out, there are few exceptions that are noted.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

SMFH​

Not one of your citations is offered by Justice Grey as US law. Grey cites British Common Law as as it relates to British Subjects. And as a historic review of how what the founders may have meant with 'natural born' citizen'.

As for his findings in US law, this is what Justice Grey has to say:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Justice Gray makes no exceptions. You've imagined them. Nor does Gray ever recognize such exceptions as being recognized under US law. Nor is any such exception recognized in any court ruling;

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Constitutional citizenship requires being born inside the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it found that NO foreign born child could meet these standards. Even those born to US parents. But instead became citizens by congressional action. Not the constitution.

With the Roger court making it clear that congresssionally granted citizenship was fully deniable, could be revoked without the consent of the citizen, and was subject to congressional regulation. While constitutional citizenship could not be denied and was beyond the authority of congress to regulate.

Natural born citizenship is not deniable nor can it be revoked without the consent of the citizen. Meaning that by default, foreign born children to US citizens cannot be natural born. As their citizenship most definitely is deniable.

And again, note the complete lack of 'unless their parents were in the military' exceptions that you invented. They do not exist.