Vanity: The Constitutional Meaning Of "Natural Born Citizen"

Vanity Essay | 31 January 2012 | sourcery

[Just mythoughts]

long read but well done..

[ncdave4life]

I didn’t read the whole thing, but I skipped to the end and read this, which is obviously untrue:

“The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.”

In other words, you are claiming that it is “settled law” that both John McCain and Barack Obama are constitutionally ineligible to run for President.

I’m glad you wrote that. It means that I needn’t waste my time reading the rest, per Luke 16:10.

In fact, it has always been understood that anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. That’s what the term means, and what it has always meant. That’s been settled since 1790, when the first Congress enacted a statute declaring that children born overseas of U.S.parents are natural born U.S. citizens.

That statute was signed into law by President Washington.

As a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett affirmed there are exactly two classes of citizens: “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” The former are natural-born, the latter are naturalized. There’s no halfway-between class of citizens, who are citizens from birth but not natural-born.

There’s no evidence at all, in the language or history of the U.S. Constitution, to suggest that the Framers envisioned a third class of citizens, who were citizens from birth but not to be considered “natural born.” Only crackpots like Mario Apuzzo claim such a thing, and they have no evidence to support it.

If the First Congress had meant to define some other sort of citizen, they certainly would not have used the exact term used in the Constitution: natural born. They would not have said, “shall be considered as natural born citizens” if what they’d really meant was “shall be considered as citizens, but not natural born.” There’s no suggestion in any known historical or legal document that any of the Framers thought there could be a third sort of citizen, who was neither a natural born citizen nor a naturalized citizen.

At no time has any Congress ever written any statute suggesting that someone who is born a U.S. citizen might not be a natural born citizen of the United States.

Here are four references:

1. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf (if interested in Ted Cruz, see Sec. 301(a)(7) on p.236, which is p.74 as Acrobat Reader numbers the pages in that file).

2. http://tinyurl.com/NatBornHarv

3. http://tinyurl.com/natz-chart-a

4. http://tinyurl.com/natz-chart-b

Reference #1 is the statute which specifically applies to Ted Cruz’s circumstance, though it’s the current version, rather than the 1970 version.

Reference #3 is a chart which takes into account how the law has changed over the years. (What matters is what the law was when a person was born.)

Reference #2 is a Harvard Law review article about the meaning of the term “natural born.” It was written by two former Solicitors General of the United States, one Republican and one Democrat.

Reference #4 doesn’t apply to any of the current candidates, but might have applied to President Obama if he’d been born overseas, and if his parents’ brief, illegal, bigamous marriage had been declared invalid.

[sourcery]

Your rebuttal is comprehensively and unarguably refuted by what you refused to read.

[publius911]

Bookmark

[Windflier]

Thank you for re-posting your excellent essay on the subject of natural born citizenship.

It’s, by far, the best that has ever been posted to this site, and probably any other.

[Former War Criminal]

You have FReepmail.

[Yosemitest]

As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...

As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

" ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.


Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

NOTE: nonjusticiable political question

Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
One scholar explained:
The political question doctrine holds
that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
- - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
A court can only decide issues based on law.
The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
The court will not engage in political disputes.

A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
of a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.

Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?

"Naturalize" !
"admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Related: Naturalizing.

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or 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: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

READ IT VERY CLOSELY.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

... Citizenship is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 2,
Article 1, Section 3,
Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1,
and in the 14th Amendment
and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation in
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment;
the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4,
also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


• Anyone born inside the United States *
  * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  
• A final, historical condition:
  a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as
Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402),
Alaska (8 USC 1404),
Hawaii (8 USC 1405),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406),
and Guam (8 USC 1407).
Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

(Continued)

[Yosemitest]

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

So the statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

[Read Write Repeat]

I’m not a lawyer — BTT!

[Democratic-Republican]

Thanks for taking the time and effort to write your essay and this response.

This post and your essay are clear and detailed should someone want to understand this issue more fully.

Interesting how we humans are our own destructive agents of entropy, choosing to create disorder from order by diluting the purity of the strict rules and definitions that benefit and protect us when they get in the way of our whims of the moment.

Franklin warned us when he said "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Agreed. And I mean both of you. Epic efforts.

[Democratic-Republican]

Dear God no. Just NO.

All your excellent effort ( and I do mean that ) is based on the unfortunate but mistaken belief in the supremacy of the Congress.

Think about it, an imperial Congress, non-co-equal with the ability to edit, rewrite, interpret the Constitution on the fly. And that is what they would be doing by determining who is in that mysterious category of Natural Born and by extension who can run for President.

Apparently Congress and We The People went through all that trouble with the 13th/14th/15th Amendments when mere statutory law from Congress-critters would have been sufficient? Suffrage, 18-year old vote, Senate elections, Presidential term limits and succession all could have been legislated instead of the actual ratified articles by the States and We The People?

Original Intent is about specific and limited enumerated powers of all the branches, including Congress, not a "fill in the blanks" etch-a-sketch. Their enumerated Article I Section 8 power is only to naturalize ALIENS into plain old CITIZENS. Full stop. This is a mutually exclusive pool of people that does not include the separate pool of Article II Section 1 Natural Born Citizens. Your entire premise misses this point and seems to be aimed at merging them somehow. More here

The most obvious test that your hypothesis fails is the famous edit made from the 1790 Naturalization Law to the 1795 modification, that brought it into line with Original Intent ...

From NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act, research from a 1967 House member ...

In 1795, James Madison himself actually expressed concern that some might erroneously infer, from the 1790 Act, that the foreign-born children of American parents actually "are" (not merely "considered as") natural born citizens. McElwee indicates:

Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term "natural-born" from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.

Madison is clearly anticipating those like you that will run wildly with the belief that an almighty Congress is in the business of carving Commandments into tablets on high. They most certainly are not. Madison, the most central figure in the Constitution is specifically telling you that Congress does NOT define who a Natural Born Citizen is.

We are seriously going to need a full Constitutional reset. And I don't mean a Mark Levin Article V slate of baby Amendments. I mean a full blown, burn it down to the ground and start over reset. The republic is thoroughly finished if even our own FRiends want a Politburo to compliment the already out of control Supreme Court and a thoroughly compromised and over-reaching executive branch. ~sigh~

If nothing else, I hope some people now can figure out why the simple and clear logic of a time tested boolean algorithm ...

USA born AND citizen mother AND citizen father = NBC

... cuts out all the stupid edge cases and KISS keeps it simple. What possible reason do we have for entertaining anything outside of this envelope? The only reason to argue against this is if your intention is to internationalize/globalize America into a shell of its former self.

I ask those who question this simple algorithm to explain why it is that we have no examples, I said NO EXAMPLES of either Presidents, Candidates or even people running for nomination prior to President DingleBarry? Is it pure coincidence?

Furthermore, if any American citizen begets a Natural Born Citizen anywhere they deliver their baby in the world and anyone that delivers here ( and we'll leave sperm banks out of this ) then unless we are walled in and no-one can enter or leave, after enough time passes eventually every single person on planet Earth will be a NBC. Think about it!

Our suicidal trajectory after 228 years is on track to blast right past Rome and its 1000 years. Visigoths, Mexicans, stick a fork in us right now.

[BruceS]

US Citizens who have or have had dual citizenship are not.

Just curious. I am the 3rd of 6 children born to my parents - both of whom were US citizens from birth and by birth. My father was a career Air Force officer and was stationed in England for 4 years when I was very young. My younger brother was born while my father was stationed in England (in an English hospital, not on base). He derived dual citizenship from this and didn't renounce the English citizenship until he was commissioned an officer in the US Army. So you are saying that, because my brother happened to be born on foreign soil, while his father was serving there under the orders of the Commander in Chief, and that foreign government happened to grant dual citizenship, he is not eligible to be President of the United States?

I am sorry, but that does not meet my reading of the Constitution. Please elaborate.

By the way, my brother is a liberal and I would never vote for him for President - but that is different from being Constitutionally ineligible.

[Democratic-Republican]

Arrrrgh.

My second post there at #111 was to Yosemitest

I pinged you and GBA and Mollypitcher1 to it

I forgot to quote Yosemitest to make that clear.

Sorry for any confusion!

[DoodleDawg]

Natural born citizenship: A natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is not granted by law or by any act of a sovereign, but inheres naturally in the person from birth according to principles that don't depend on laws or decisions of a sovereign.

By your definition then isn't impossible for a African-American to be a natural-born citizen? In 1856 the Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans, both slave and free, could not be citizens of the U.S. of any kind. It took the 14th Amendment, and the laws passed to enforce it, to grant them citizenship and citizenship at birth. Does that not mean that they have their citizenship granted by law and therefore they cannot be natural-born citizens?

[Democratic-Republican]

Does that not mean that they have their citizenship granted by law and therefore they cannot be natural-born citizens?

No. It does NOT mean that. means it was an Amendment. Not a law.

We The People and the States are involved in Amendments. The 13th/14th/15th were not laws. The fact that they were not mere laws is the entire point that some cannot grasp.

Power flows from ( God ) => People => States => FedGov

Slaves were NOT made whole by Congress, they were made whole by We The People.

This is the clue that should prevent people from looking into statutory law to decide if some candidate is a NBC.

[PJBankard]

Very thorough. You definitely put a lot of thought and time in preparing this. I’ve only read part of it so far. Bookmarking to finish later.

[GBA]

Thank you for reminding me of this most excellent thread by sourcery!

[Resolute Conservative]

Long post award...

[Yosemitest]

YES !
THAT IS CORECT !

There's NOTHING to THINK ABOUT !
The LAW IS THE LAW !

Someone once asked:

" Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson
or any of the authors of the constitution
would view the bastard offspring of these unfortunate women as Natural Born United States Citizens?"

"Bastard offspring" by definition means the "unfortunate" mother was NOT MARRIED. That statement is IRRELEVANT !

When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".

Now for your next IRRELEVANT statement:

"And using your logic wouldn't the children of these bastard offspring be Natural Born Citizens
regardless of the location of their birth
also be Natural Born United States Citizens?
If not then tell me why
using your logic we do not have thousands upon thousands of Natural Born US Citizens who are decedents from these Muslim bastard children?"

AGAIN, that "STRAW MAN" IS IRRELEVANT, when it comes to TED CRUZ being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States ON THE DAY HE WAS BORN !

You should do better research when it comes to Thomas Jefferson.
Read Thomas Jefferson's own BILL on there "Natural Born Citizen" requirements for the CommonWealth of Virginia:

Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens Of This Commonwealth

May 1779 Virginia Papers 2:476–78

Be it enacted by the General Assembly,

that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth
and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act,
and all who shall hereafter migrate into[Volume 4, Page 488] the same;
and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation,
that they intend to reside therein,
and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants WHERESOEVER BORN,
whose father, if living,
or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth,
or who migrate hither,
their father, if living,
or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen,
or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed CITIZENS of this commonwealth,
until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed:
And all others NOT BEING CITIZENS of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.


The clerk of the court shall enter such oath of record,
and give the person taking the same a certificate thereof,
for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar.
And in order to preserve to the citizens of this commonwealth, that natural right,
which all men have of relinquishing the country, in which birth, or other accident may have thrown them,
and, seeking subsistance and happiness wheresoever they may be able, or may hope to find them:
And to declare unequivocably what circumstances shall be deemed evidence of an intention in any citizen to exercise that right,
it is enacted and declared,
that whensoever any citizen of this commonwealth, shall
by word of mouth in the presence of the court of the county, wherein he resides,
or of the General Court,
or by deed in writing, under his hand and seal, executed in the presence of three witnesses,
and by them proved in either of the said courts,
openly declare to the same court,
that he RELINQUISHES the character of a citizen,
and shall DEPART the commonwealth;
or whensoever he shall WITHOUT such declaration DEPART the commonwealth AND ENTYER INTO THE SERVICE OIF ANY OTHER STATE,
not in enmity with this, or any other of the United States of America,
or do any act whereby he shall become a subject or citizen of such state,
such person shall be considered as having exercised his natural right of EXPATRIATING himself,
and shall be deemed NO CITIZEN of this commonwealth from the time of his departure.

SO there, you have PROOF

that Thomas Jefferson,
or for that matter, ANY of the authors of the constitution,
would view TED CRUZ as a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States,
ON THE DAY HE WAS BORN !

1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

[GBA]

You're conclusion seems to be in error:

...and all infants WHERESOEVER BORN,

In Ted's case: IN CANADA

whose father, if living,

Yes, father is living and NOT a citizen

or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth,

His Mother might or might not have been a citizen at his birth.

or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother,

shall be deemed CITIZENS of this commonwealth,

You have misstated Jefferson:

"SO there, you have PROOF that Thomas Jefferson, or for that matter, ANY of the authors of the constitution, would view TED CRUZ as a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States, ON THE DAY HE WAS BORN !

By your own quoted passage, Jefferson said, assuming Ted's father was a living citizen, (or if his father was dead that his mother was a citizen), when Ted was born, then Ted is just a citizen.

Unfortunately, however, not a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States" as you want to believe.

Also unfortunate, Ted's dad is still living and he was NOT an American citizen when Ted was born in Canada.

So...THAT would make Ted a Canadian "ON THE DAY HE WAS BORN !".

Just out of curiosity, what do you call the citizenship of someone who was born here in country to American citizen parents?