Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dangus
Bull. The first Congress was very clear that someone who was a citizen by means of birth was a natural-born citizen. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1790.

Whether congress understood NBC according to the Law of Nations or English Common Law, in either case, Cruz wouldn't qualify. Under ECW, citizenship does not derive from the mother, but through the father. Under the law of nations, Cruz is disqualified because he was not born in the US to two citizen parents.

By the way, the 1790 act was amended and its "natural born" language specifically removed, probably due to Congress realizing that the British were using it to justify impressment. The founders did not want people upon whom dual claims of citizenship can be made.

12 posted on 01/11/2016 8:29:27 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

The point isn’t who Congress chooses to confer citizenship upon, but their definition of natural-born. At the time of his birth, Cruz was a citizen; thus, he is a natural-born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized citizen.


27 posted on 01/11/2016 8:39:07 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

I think the Court would hold that the distinction between the citizenship of the mother and the father at English Common Law is no longer valid, based on the 14th and 19th Amendment.


73 posted on 01/11/2016 9:55:56 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson