Edge919 says: “IOW, the Wong Kim Ark decision categorically excluded any and all persons from being natural-born citizens if not born in the country to citizen parents. Those who rely on the 14th amendment for citizenship had to satisfy the subject clause by being born to parents with permanent residence and domicil. Cruz doesn’t meet these conditions nor does Obama.”
As to Senator Cruz, my guess is that the statute (8 U.S.C. § 1401) that defines one category of citizen of the United States at birth as: “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...” will carry him to confirmation of natural born citizen status should his eligibility ever be tested in court.
From the Wong majority decision:
[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The Wong court also held that: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’ and the Court went on to rule: “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
“ The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
And in contemporary times, 16 courts have ruled that Barack Obama is eligible as a natural born citizen and no court has ever ruled to the contrary. For example:
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
Nothing in the law you cited says anything about natural-born citizenship. You're trying to connect dots that cannot legally be connected. The Wong Kim Ark decision admitted that 14th amendment did not redefine natural-born citizenship. How would a statute do so when it never uses the term??
From the Wong majority decision: [An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
This doesn't affect Cruz. His parents didn't "hath issue here."
The Wong court also held that: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’ and the Court went on to rule: “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
This means nothing because Gray already said the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. Someone might be a citizen under the conditions, they aren't a natural-born citizen because it was already ruled out by the Minor citation.
“ The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Yes, the same rule about English subjects did stay in effect. It was made so by the Treaty of 1783, and it's this rule that would make Obama a natural-born subject and not a natural-born citizen. The rule is irrelevant to Ted Cruz.
And in contemporary times, 16 courts have ruled that Barack Obama is eligible as a natural born citizen and no court has ever ruled to the contrary.
And as you've shown, none of these courts provided a direct and supportable legal foundation for any claim that Obama is a natural-born citizen. Your Tisdale citation is a great example of an unsupported ruling. The closest it comes to supporting its claim is a citation of the Hollander challenge against McCain and McCain wasn't even born in the U.S.