Breaking: NJ Judge Admits He Never Read Briefs That Ted Cruz Was Not A Natural Born Citizen

[Steve_McGarrett]

You're confused. What you're citing is a description of how you wouldn't be granted natural born status. Not how you would.

Being born in the ligeance of the king requires two components:

1) Geographically being born within the territory of the king
2) Being under the the King's law when this happens.

Ligeance meant to be:
ligeance ‎(plural ligeances)

1. (Britain, law, obsolete) The connection between sovereign and subject by which they were mutually bound, the former to protection and the securing of justice, the latter to faithful service; allegiance.

Thus those serving in the Kings military and having children born abroad were also giving birth to natural born subjects of the King.

Says you. Wong Kim Ark describes the exact conditions of natural born status....and it doesn't say a thing you do.

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.

Foreign born children of citizens aren't born in the Kings allegiance and under his laws. Thus, they aren't natural born. The only way such children can acquire citizenship is through naturalization.

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.

You've imagined an exception to this standard. Your imagination is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

As the WKA court makes ludicriously clear:

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.

McCain meets both criteria of natural born status as the Panama Canal zone was an unincorporated US territory and was under US jurisdiction.

No where does it indicate natural born status by way of parentage to foreign born children of US citizen....under any circumstance. WKA explicitly indicate that the ONLY way for a foreign born child to US parents can acquire citizenship....is through naturalization:

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 [p703] 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

There are not exceptions given there. It doesn't say 'unless your parents were in the military'. It says, clear as a bell:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized"

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

There are exceptions in the WKA opinion. English Ambassadors in France have a child in France, that child was a "natural-born subject" of England. English soldiers occupying lands in other countries, their children were born "natural-born subjects" because they were in complete ligeance to the King.

Says you. The passages of WKA say no such thing. Here's your passage:

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.

It makes no exception for natural born citizenship for children born to foreign soldiers. It never even mentions 'natural born'.

You made that up. And its the cornerstone of your entire argument. Nor was Panama Canal Zone 'hostile territory' nor 'conquered'. It was ceded by treaty with the consent of the country that held the territory in exchange for military protection from Columbia.

There's quite simply no angle your argument works under.

Exactly nowhere in the Wong Kim Ark ruling will you find he was affirmed an Article 2 Section 1 'natural born Citizen'.

He (WKA) was born to parents here legally domiciled and resident, thus making him eligible as a "natural-born citizen".[/QUOTE]
They affirmed him just a Citizen via the 14th Amendment and not Article 2 Section 1, the only place in the constitution where the term of art 'natural born Citizen' is. The 14th was never amended to Article 2 Section 1.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

A subject. You're equating a natural born subject with a subject. Which makes no more sense than equating a natural born citizen with any citizen.

No, read the WKA case, the child born of an ambassador was born a "natural-born subject" of the parents nation. The Ambassador was in ligeance of the King.

None of the passages you've cited mention natural born anything. With the Wong Kim Ark ruling making it ludicrously clear that there was only one way that foreign born children of US citizens could acquire citizenship: Naturalization.

WKA made no exceptions to this rule. You imagined it. Nor did later rulings.

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.

:yawn: The only thing you are demonstrating is a lack of comprehension. Let me guess, you are a "strict constructionist".

Are you going to tell me this isn't in the WKA opinion, too?

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.​

SMFH

 

[Liquid Reigns]

They affirmed him just a Citizen via the 14th Amendment and not Article 2 Section 1, the only place in the constitution where the term of art 'natural born Citizen' is. The 14th was never amended to Article 2 Section 1.

A child born on US soil to persons legally domiciled and resident here are "natural-born citizens", their race has no bearing. By your claim, Blacks are not "natural-born subjects" either.

WKA

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.​

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

They affirmed him just a Citizen via the 14th Amendment and not Article 2 Section 1, the only place in the constitution where the term of art 'natural born Citizen' is. The 14th was never amended to Article 2 Section 1.

A child born on US soil to persons legally domiciled and resident here are "natural-born citizens", their race has no bearing. By your claim, Blacks are not "natural-born subjects" either.

No! Show me in the 14th Amendment the term 'natural born Citizen' as is in Article 2 Section 1.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

They affirmed him just a Citizen via the 14th Amendment and not Article 2 Section 1, the only place in the constitution where the term of art 'natural born Citizen' is. The 14th was never amended to Article 2 Section 1.

A child born on US soil to persons legally domiciled and resident here are "natural-born citizens", their race has no bearing. By your claim, Blacks are not "natural-born subjects" either.

No! Show me in the 14th Amendment the term 'natural born Citizen' as is in Article 2 Section 1.

I'll show you in the WKA Opinion where it was cited from Dred Scott in 1857 and 1866 in US V Rhodes.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
....
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:​

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.​

Are you going to claim that WKA parents who were here legally domiciled and resident didn't owe allegiance to the US? The Treaty of Tientsen only denied his parents the ability to become US Citizens, it did not deny them Legal Residence, nor did it deny the child born here "natural-born citizenship".

and here from WKA referring to the 14th Amendment

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;​

 

[JakeStarkey]

easyt, you have the focus of a gnat.

I doubt Steve_McGarret or Liquid are liberals.

Cruz is eligible regardless of all the yammering of the McGarretts and the Liquids.

I'm a Classic Liberal.

And you are a hamster. See, words need to have meanings, and the meanings are clear that you are not a hamster or Classic Liberal.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

easyt, you have the focus of a gnat.

I doubt Steve_McGarret or Liquid are liberals.

Cruz is eligible regardless of all the yammering of the McGarretts and the Liquids.

I'm a Classic Liberal.

And you are a hamster. See, words need to have meanings, and the meanings are clear that you are not a hamster or Classic Liberal.

Do you even know what a Classic Liberal is? Some how I doubt you do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know you don't.

 

[Contumacious]

As I have shown on numerous occasions the "judicial" system is corrupt to its core.

Only skylar and comrade Starkiev believe that Moscow show trials are valid

SCOTUS have adopted the nazi rule which prevents WE THE PEOPLE from suing judges - they are, somehow, immune.


.

You've shown that you can call the Supreme Court justices names. That's about it.

You have shown that as a socialist , you oppose individual freedom, the free market and Capitalism and towards that end you encourage judicial tyranny.


.

And now you're just calling me names. Is that really the extent of your argument? You have to know its legally irrelevant. As our constitution doesn't give a fiddler's fuck what names you call people.

You have taken upon yourself to come to this forum and PURPOSELY misrepresent


unless you are employed by the so-called judicial system I fail to see how as an individual you benefit from having those motherfuckers USURP powers.


.HOW do WE THE PEOPLE benefit from having the TYRANTS take it upon themselves to IMMUNIZE themselves without any Constitutional authority to do so .

Stop being a fucking brownoser and explain

Usurp....according to who? Remember, per the Federalist Papers, the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law and the constitution. And to enact the constitution in exclusion of statutes that are in conflict with it.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

How are they 'usurping' power by doing *exactly* what the founders intended for them to do? And how have I misrepresented the role of the judiciary as described in the Federalist Papers?

And by all means, be specific.

Do you have a brain?

Do you support freedom across the board?

Are Americans FREE people?

Are the NINTH and TENTH Amendments still VALID?

Can you tell the difference between USURPATION and interpretation?

If the answer is yes to all 5, then according to you.?

 

[Contumacious]

As I have shown on numerous occasions the "judicial" system is corrupt to its core.

Only skylar and comrade Starkiev believe that Moscow show trials are valid

SCOTUS have adopted the nazi rule which prevents WE THE PEOPLE from suing judges - they are, somehow, immune.


.

You've shown that you can call the Supreme Court justices names. That's about it.

You have shown that as a socialist , you oppose individual freedom, the free market and Capitalism and towards that end you encourage judicial tyranny.


.

And now you're just calling me names. Is that really the extent of your argument? You have to know its legally irrelevant. As our constitution doesn't give a fiddler's fuck what names you call people.

You have taken upon yourself to come to this forum and PURPOSELY misrepresent unless you are employed by the so-called judicial system I fail to see how as an individual you benefit from having those motherfuckers USURP powers. .HOW do WE THE PEOPLE benefit from having the TYRANTS take it upon themselves to IMMUNIZE themselves without any Constitutional authority to do so. Stop being a fucking brownoser and explain

You won't believe me, so I suggest you talk to some judges or people who work for them. But here's a hint: they cannot by themselves handle the incredible paperwork etc.

Bullshit

The late Thurgood Marshall, a lifelong defender of the Bill of Rights, told Life Magazine, "If it's a dope case, I won't even read the petition. I ain't giving no break to no dope dealer...

Donna Haupt and John Neary, "Justice Revealed," Life, September 1987, 105.


What would have been his reaction if Chief Justice Earl Warren had stated "If it's a ni99er case, I won't even read the petition. I ain't giving no break to no ni99er...

 

[JakeStarkey]

You've shown that you can call the Supreme Court justices names. That's about it.

You have shown that as a socialist , you oppose individual freedom, the free market and Capitalism and towards that end you encourage judicial tyranny.


.

And now you're just calling me names. Is that really the extent of your argument? You have to know its legally irrelevant. As our constitution doesn't give a fiddler's fuck what names you call people.

You have taken upon yourself to come to this forum and PURPOSELY misrepresent unless you are employed by the so-called judicial system I fail to see how as an individual you benefit from having those motherfuckers USURP powers. .HOW do WE THE PEOPLE benefit from having the TYRANTS take it upon themselves to IMMUNIZE themselves without any Constitutional authority to do so. Stop being a fucking brownoser and explain

You won't believe me, so I suggest you talk to some judges or people who work for them. But here's a hint: they cannot by themselves handle the incredible paperwork etc.

Bullshit

The late Thurgood Marshall, a lifelong defender of the Bill of Rights, told Life Magazine, "If it's a dope case, I won't even read the petition. I ain't giving no break to no dope dealer...

Donna Haupt and John Neary, "Justice Revealed," Life, September 1987, 105.


What would have been his reaction if Chief Justice Earl Warren had stated "If it's a ni99er case, I won't even read the petition. I ain't giving no break to no ni99er...

Ah, you just agreed with me.

 

[Silhouette]

Canada was not an unincorporated territory of the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was.

Help me out here. It was my understanding that he was born on the military base which would have been US territory. Right or wrong?

Wrong. Cruz was simply born in Alberta Canada and received a Canadian birth certificate to a housewife and a common laborer not involved with the military at all, nor on a US military base in Alberta (do we even have one there?).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Canada was not an unincorporated territory of the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was.

Help me out here. It was my understanding that he was born on the military base which would have been US territory. Right or wrong?

Wrong. Cruz was simply born in Alberta Canada and received a Canadian birth certificate to a housewife and a common laborer not involved with the military at all, nor on a US military base in Alberta (do we even have one there?).

Cruz was born to an American mother living in Canada. He was an American citizen the second he drew breath.

 

[Syriusly]

Regardless- as the law says- he was a citizen at birth- even if the United States was not aware of this until he was 4 years old.

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

From your prior link United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309) - Chapter 3, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:

•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and

•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2] ​

So you are conceding that Cruz was a citizen at birth.

SMFH What does may acquire, mean? It is not definitive.

'may acquire' if requirements a and b are met. Ted's mother met them.

So you are conceding that he was a citizen at birth.

Again, to know what the requirements are you must look at the 1952 INA, your bolded portion only gives 301(a)(7) and fails to even acknowledge 301(a)(7)(b) which places requirements on the child as well. Because Cruzs parents changed their legal domicil to Canada, section 301(a)(7)(b) applies.

Here is another link to help you understand the law.
Purpose and Background - Chapter 1, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

The law in effect at the time of birth determines whether someone born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents is a U.S. citizen at birth. In general, these laws require a combination of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born and having lived in the United States for a period of time. In addition, children born abroad may become U.S. citizens after birth. Citizenship laws have changed extensively over time with two major changes coming into effect in 1978 and 2001.


Prior to the Act of October 10, 1978, U.S. citizens who had acquired citizenship through birth abroad to one citizen parent had to meet certain physical presence requirements in order to retain citizenship. [2] This legislation removed all retention requirements. Prior to the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), effective February 27, 2001, the INA had two provisions for derivation of citizenship. [3] The CCA removed one provision and revised the other making it the only method for children under 18 years of age in the United States to automatically acquire citizenship after birth. [4] ​

And again- all of that is in regards to "U.S. citizens who acquired citizenship through birth abroad.... in order to retain citizenship.

Cruz was a citizen at birth because his mother met the statutory requirements.

 

[Syriusly]

You're confused. What you're citing is a description of how you wouldn't be granted natural born status. Not how you would.

Being born in the ligeance of the king requires two components:

1) Geographically being born within the territory of the king
2) Being under the the King's law when this happens.

Ligeance meant to be:
ligeance ‎(plural ligeances)

1. (Britain, law, obsolete) The connection between sovereign and subject by which they were mutually bound, the former to protection and the securing of justice, the latter to faithful service; allegiance.

Thus those serving in the Kings military and having children born abroad were also giving birth to natural born subjects of the King.

Says you. Wong Kim Ark describes the exact conditions of natural born status....and it doesn't say a thing you do.

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.

Foreign born children of citizens aren't born in the Kings allegiance and under his laws. Thus, they aren't natural born. The only way such children can acquire citizenship is through naturalization.

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.

You've imagined an exception to this standard. Your imagination is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

As the WKA court makes ludicriously clear:

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.

McCain meets both criteria of natural born status as the Panama Canal zone was an unincorporated US territory and was under US jurisdiction.

No where does it indicate natural born status by way of parentage to foreign born children of US citizen....under any circumstance. WKA explicitly indicate that the ONLY way for a foreign born child to US parents can acquire citizenship....is through naturalization:

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 [p703] 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

There are not exceptions given there. It doesn't say 'unless your parents were in the military'. It says, clear as a bell:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized"

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

There are exceptions in the WKA opinion. English Ambassadors in France have a child in France, that child was a "natural-born subject" of England. English soldiers occupying lands in other countries, their children were born "natural-born subjects" because they were in complete ligeance to the King.

Says you. The passages of WKA say no such thing. Here's your passage:

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.

It makes no exception for natural born citizenship for children born to foreign soldiers. It never even mentions 'natural born'.

You made that up. And its the cornerstone of your entire argument. Nor was Panama Canal Zone 'hostile territory' nor 'conquered'. It was ceded by treaty with the consent of the country that held the territory in exchange for military protection from Columbia.

There's quite simply no angle your argument works under.

What were children born to foreign ambassadresses (Diplomats)? If England had a foreign Ambassador (Diplomat) in France what was the child born as? French or English?

That would all depend on English law now- not American law- now.

 

[Syriusly]

Are US Military bases considered US territory? Are children born on a US military base in Germany considered "natural-born citizens"? Are military personnel considered a type of diplomat?

No
I think so- but not because they were born on a U.S. military base.
No.

 

[Syriusly]

A subject. You're equating a natural born subject with a subject. Which makes no more sense than equating a natural born citizen with any citizen.

No, read the WKA case, the child born of an ambassador was born a "natural-born subject" of the parents nation. The Ambassador was in ligeance of the King.

By your reasoning McCain is not a "natural-born citizen". Even the Senate Resolution admits that because he was born on a US Military base to US Citizens he was a "natural-born citizen".
Text of S.Res. 511 (110th): A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. (Resolution Agreed to by Senate version) - GovTrack.us

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

That John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
​

Note that the Senate doesn't refer to WKA.

The Senate recognized that Senator John McCain was eligible- and I agree that he was. But the Senate resolution was non-binding nor does the resolution explain how he was eligible.

IF you are saying that WKA says Cruz is not eligible, then McCain would not have been eligible under WKA either- he was made a U.S. citizen through action of Congress- not through the 14th Amendment.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

From your prior link United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309) - Chapter 3, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:

•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and

•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2] ​

So you are conceding that Cruz was a citizen at birth.

SMFH What does may acquire, mean? It is not definitive.

'may acquire' if requirements a and b are met. Ted's mother met them.

So you are conceding that he was a citizen at birth.

Again, to know what the requirements are you must look at the 1952 INA, your bolded portion only gives 301(a)(7) and fails to even acknowledge 301(a)(7)(b) which places requirements on the child as well. Because Cruzs parents changed their legal domicil to Canada, section 301(a)(7)(b) applies.

Here is another link to help you understand the law.
Purpose and Background - Chapter 1, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

The law in effect at the time of birth determines whether someone born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents is a U.S. citizen at birth. In general, these laws require a combination of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born and having lived in the United States for a period of time. In addition, children born abroad may become U.S. citizens after birth. Citizenship laws have changed extensively over time with two major changes coming into effect in 1978 and 2001.


Prior to the Act of October 10, 1978, U.S. citizens who had acquired citizenship through birth abroad to one citizen parent had to meet certain physical presence requirements in order to retain citizenship. [2] This legislation removed all retention requirements. Prior to the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), effective February 27, 2001, the INA had two provisions for derivation of citizenship. [3] The CCA removed one provision and revised the other making it the only method for children under 18 years of age in the United States to automatically acquire citizenship after birth. [4] ​

And again- all of that is in regards to "U.S. citizens who acquired citizenship through birth abroad.... in order to retain citizenship.

Cruz was a citizen at birth because his mother met the statutory requirements.

So you still completely dismiss 8USC1431 which are the requirements for the child, since there was no CRBA and the parents residence was Canada and not the US. Cruz acquired his citizenship the moment he entered the US and met the requirements needed by him, had he failed to enter the US before age 23, he would have been denied US Citizenship, per the 1952 INA in place at the time.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You're confused. What you're citing is a description of how you wouldn't be granted natural born status. Not how you would.

Being born in the ligeance of the king requires two components:

1) Geographically being born within the territory of the king
2) Being under the the King's law when this happens.

Ligeance meant to be:
ligeance ‎(plural ligeances)

1. (Britain, law, obsolete) The connection between sovereign and subject by which they were mutually bound, the former to protection and the securing of justice, the latter to faithful service; allegiance.

Thus those serving in the Kings military and having children born abroad were also giving birth to natural born subjects of the King.

Says you. Wong Kim Ark describes the exact conditions of natural born status....and it doesn't say a thing you do.

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.

Foreign born children of citizens aren't born in the Kings allegiance and under his laws. Thus, they aren't natural born. The only way such children can acquire citizenship is through naturalization.

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.

You've imagined an exception to this standard. Your imagination is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

As the WKA court makes ludicriously clear:

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.

McCain meets both criteria of natural born status as the Panama Canal zone was an unincorporated US territory and was under US jurisdiction.

No where does it indicate natural born status by way of parentage to foreign born children of US citizen....under any circumstance. WKA explicitly indicate that the ONLY way for a foreign born child to US parents can acquire citizenship....is through naturalization:

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 [p703] 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

There are not exceptions given there. It doesn't say 'unless your parents were in the military'. It says, clear as a bell:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized"

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

There are exceptions in the WKA opinion. English Ambassadors in France have a child in France, that child was a "natural-born subject" of England. English soldiers occupying lands in other countries, their children were born "natural-born subjects" because they were in complete ligeance to the King.

Says you. The passages of WKA say no such thing. Here's your passage:

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.

It makes no exception for natural born citizenship for children born to foreign soldiers. It never even mentions 'natural born'.

You made that up. And its the cornerstone of your entire argument. Nor was Panama Canal Zone 'hostile territory' nor 'conquered'. It was ceded by treaty with the consent of the country that held the territory in exchange for military protection from Columbia.

There's quite simply no angle your argument works under.

What were children born to foreign ambassadresses (Diplomats)? If England had a foreign Ambassador (Diplomat) in France what was the child born as? French or English?

That would all depend on English law now- not American law- now.

SMFH The English Common Law is taken and used by American Common Law. An American Ambassador having a child in a foreign nation, that child is born a "natural-born citizen". It is recognized by both common law and international law. An American citizen giving birth to a child in a foreign nation, that child may acquire US Citizenship, however that child is not a "natural-born citizen"

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Are US Military bases considered US territory? Are children born on a US military base in Germany considered "natural-born citizens"? Are military personnel considered a type of diplomat?

No
I think so- but not because they were born on a U.S. military base.
No.

Military bases are considered a form of US Territory, US Military law is the law, not the laws of the surrounding country or territory. Military bases fall within the jurisdiction of the US based on SOFA Agreements. They are not territory or soil like American Samoa or Guam are.