[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Citizen =/= Natural Born citizen.

Congress has only power over naturalization. Cruz is a citizen via Congressional action. Ergo, Cruz was naturalized at birth.

To be a natural born citizen, two interpretations at time of founding fathers. 1) born to 2 Citizens on US land. 2) Must have US citizen father, since citizenship passes paternally.

Cruz fails both definitions.

[unlearner]

“Congress has only power over naturalization. Cruz is a citizen via Congressional action. Ergo, Cruz was naturalized at birth.”

Your statement could only be true if the first act of naturalization in 1790 was unconstitutional. Not one founder ever uttered a single word to indicate in the slightest that anything about this act was amiss. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

So the founders did not hold your opinion. Even if you are right, and they misunderstood the meaning of their own words, I will gladly be wrong in their company.

[John Valentine]

Utterly false and falsified as always. There is no such definition of natural born citzen anywhere but in your fevered imagination. It does not exist.

[SubMareener]

Rubio also is not a natural-born citizen. Neither of his parents were citizens when he was born. So if Trump really does sue, it could be a two-fer! ;-)

[Springfield Reformer]

Um, it is misguided to assume that a child who is recognized under statute as a citizen at birth has been naturalized. Please read the following very carefully:

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term “naturalization” means “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization. (emphasis added)

From the State Department”s Foreign Affairs Manual.

Do you see what just happened there? Citizenship at birth is NOT citizenship by naturalization. That means that the INA (Immigration and Naturalization Act) defines some of it's own content as NOT being about naturalization per se. I know it seems counterintuitive, but it is true.

So the problem becomes, what are the right categories?  If the INA creates a mutually exclusive dichotomy between naturalization (something happens after birth) versus citizenship at birth (something happens at birth), then the following citizenship mechanisms apply:

	One or Two Citizen Parents		Alien Parents
	Born in US	Born Outside US	Born in US	Born Outside US
14th Amendment	Citizen at Birth	N/A	Citizen at Birth	Naturalized in US After Birth
Statutory (INA)	N/A	Citizen at Birth	N/A	Naturalized After Birth
Common Law	Citizen at Birth	N/A	N/A	N/A

If I have created the above chart correctly (and I allow that it is subject to peer review), the general categories are as follows:

1) People who are naturalized because they had alien parents and were born outside the country and were made citizens some time after their birth after meeting various conditions precedent. Citizens naturalized within the US also receive the additional protection of the 14th Amendment.

2) Everybody else is a citizen at birth. ... Not. Naturalized.

    a) If you are born in the US, with either citizen or non-citizen parents, you are under 14th Amendment protection, designed to protect newly freed slaves, and not about natural born status.
    b) If you are born outside the US, with one or two citizen parents, under the INA you are a citizen from birth, IF you retain your citizenship by meeting certain conditions subsequent
    c) If you are born inside the US, with one or two citizen parents, under common law you are a citizen from birth, IF you avoid treason, etc., to retain your citizenship (condition subsequent)

So according to the INS, becoming a citizen at birth is mutually exclusive to being naturalized.  You are one or the other, but not both.  So if we insist against reason that one can be a citizen at birth, but NOT naturalized, and NOT natural born, what is such a person? The law knows no such creature. At least not that I ever heard of.  Much more rational it is to find there is statutory control over special edge cases of natural born citizens, i.e., foreign born citizens who were citizens at birth without naturalization by operation of some natural principle, such as jus sanguinis, like Cruz.  

BTW, the Court would not be bound to find a woman unable to transfer her citizenship to her child because of a now outlawed principle by which the woman had no legal existence apart from her husband. The Court will never go there. Equal protection.

This is why, push come to shove, Cruz will most likely be found eligible, if the case ever reaches the merits, which I doubt it will.  

Peace,

SR

[American in Israel]

When the unwanted truth stares you in the face, you retreat to your own reality. Who can argue with you. Your bat Shi’ite crazy.

[DoodleDawg]

Congress has only power over naturalization. Cruz is a citizen via Congressional action.

By that definition then, no African-American can be a natural-born citizen since it took the 14th Amendment and its corresponding legislation passed by Congress to overturn the Dred Scott decision and grant them citizenship of any kind.