Replies

If one is a citizen at birth, they are naturally, natural born. The law does not define them, it is their parents allegiance & residence in one of the states of the United States at the time of their birth that makes them natural born. An alien does not beget a citizen and a citizen does not beget an alien. This goes back to Adam & Eve, it is called the law of nature, where a wife and children take upon themselves the national character of their husband/father respectively. It is not complicated, it is called common sense!

The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws governing immigration and naturalization, they have no authority over nature and those born naturally to the members of any given society.

Citizenship is a political characteristic that can only come via 2 ways, being born to citizen parents that increases the society by natural means, or by naturalization, that which increases the membership of a society by the rule of law.

Rogers v. Bellei (1971) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

I agree with all of your reasoning except for the first sentence which the case you cited contradicts:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

Points to Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years.

After quoting the above section of that Act, Justice Blackmun then explains: (Page 401 U. S. 817)

“The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship at birth, but to take it away upon the person’s failure to comply with a post-age-14 and pre-age-28 residential requirement. It is this deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here.”

As you know, a “Natural Born Citizen” can never have that designation taken away or changed or defined by statute or ammendment.

It is this reference to “citizenship at birth” that Cruz and his supporters uses to rationalize and justify (wrongly so) that he is eligible to be President.

Thus, “citizenship at birth” has now become defined by statute and case law, BUT it does NOT define “Natural Born Citizen” as you so rightly pointed out.