'Questions Are Being Asked': Chuck Todd Takes On Sen. Ted Cruz's Potential 'Birther Controversy'

...under the 1952 Immigration Act a child born abroad to an alien father and a citizen mother is a US citizen.

Under that same act, Obama born in Hawaii to an alien father and a citizen mother is a native-born US citizen.

What makes you think native-born = natural born?

And a STATUTORY citizen is not always a Constitutional natural born citizen.

I'll defer to the U.S. Department of State:

"In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

Mr. Rogers did more than offer a few bon mots. He cited historic legal precedent as well as the five year run of current court cases. Of course it may be a belief that by attacking Cruz’z Canadian birth, that will offer a backdoor to removing Obama if Kenyan birth can be proved. Dunham was still an American citizen by birth as was Cruz’z mother and it seems that is all that is required. One parent.

Made possible by a Law created in 1934, not 1787. Prior to that 1934 law, Cruz would have been an Alien.

I find it ridiculous to base the 1787 meaning of "natural born citizen" off of a 1934 Statute. I can't wait to see what "Natural born citizen" is going to mean later when Congress passes a newer law at some future date.

"What makes you think native-born = natural born?"

St. George Tucker:

"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague." View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings [1803]

James Kent:

"The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war" Commentaries on American Law (1826)

Minor v. Happersett () 100 U.S. 1

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Luria v. United States - 231 U.S. 9 (1913)

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

Can you cite any court causes where the court said that native born and natural born are different or that the meaning changed between the Founding era and today?

"I'll defer to the U.S. Department of State:

The document you cite is titled - "ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT"

The term native-born citizen does not appear in this document as it only pertains to child who are not native born.

The section you cite:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. [skip]

c. ... The "Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization", enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, "...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: ...

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

How the State Department would rule on a native-born child with an alien father and a citizen mother remains to be seen.

You are kicking butt on this one. Thanks for some truly excellent research. Your flawless logic wd work better if the other side were logical, but you play the ball where it lies. In this case, your historical references are indomitable. Thanks again.