[xzins]

Sorry, forgot to turn off my blockquote. Also, here's the link: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

Windflier, you have the wrong section of the Foreign Affairs Manual. You have the section that deals with what is to be considered the geography of the United States.

The very beginning of that section explains that citizenship is by geography or by bloodline. That discussion on bloodline is here in 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

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. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". 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: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖

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

As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a count-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

So, the bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

I’m sure that the Commiecrats and RINOs are working overtime to make sure that Cruz is ruled ineligible. We just can’t seem to catch a break anywhere.

[xzins]

So, in short, the analysis is that the record “does seem to imply” that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency, although it “does not necessarily imply” that such is the case.

So, the weight of the debate is on the side of those who say that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency.

[Windflier]

a statuatory natural born citizen

That sounds like an oxymoron to me. A person is a citizen by birth or by statute, but not both. The so-called natural born citizen is so, due the the circumstance of their birth in the country to citizen parents.

Also, I didn't cite anything from the Foreign Affairs Manual.

I'll have to come back to this discussion later. I've got to head out to work.

[xzins]

See post #127.

Buckeye & Windflier, I mixed up the names of those posting to be about the State Department FAM and the law of 1795.

So, my apologies for mixing up your names. The points made, though, have nothing to do with that. They are valid.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I think you missed the point of my citations to the Foreign Affairs manual.

The State Department, which is responsible for examining claims of citizenship by those born abroad, stipulates that the courts have not ruled on their eligibility to the presidency, which means that there isn't a definitive answer. The State Department recognizes that arguments can be made for and against their eligibility.

For the record, I cited two sections of the FAM. First, I cited the section on eligibility to the presidency. Second, I cited the section about military installations and diplomatic facilities. So, I'm not sure why you think I cited the wrong section.

As to your point that the Founding Fathers recognized jus sanguinis, you are correct. However, they restricted jus sanguinis citizenship to the father. They did not recognize jus sanguinis citizenship transmitted through the mother.

As the FAM stipulates, the primary means of acquiring U.S. citizenship is the principle of jus soli under the 14th Amendment.Jus sanguinis citizenship is acquired only by federal statute.

7 FAM 1131 Basis for Determination of Acquisition

7 FAM 1131.1 Authority

7 FAM 1131.1-1 Federal Statutes
(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)

a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of "jus sanguinis" under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).

If his U.S. citizen mother met the residency requirements before his birth, then Senator Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen by federal statute through the principle of jus sanguinis. Whether or not he is eligible to the presidency is a question for the courts, but I believe they would rule in his favor.

I encourage debate on this issue because I believe we need a definitive answer from SCOTUS.

[JayGalt]

ping for later reference.
This seems to now have been scrubbed.