Exactly my point. Ted is a naturalised, not natural born, citizen.
Though technically, Vattel is irrelevant to the discussion about an NBC eligible for the presidency, since Vattel himself deferred to positive law when a nation put such into place.
There is a woman claiming to have lived next door to the Cruz household in Calgary who says Ms Wilson/Cruz did just that and that the consulate in Calgary told Ms Wilson/Cruz that her child had no American status because of her renunciation so I looked into the mechanics to see if it was plausible. People can claim anything but the issues raised just support that the situation is murky and needs to be addressed by Cruz.
One Example among many given: Lynne, London, Ont.
When Lynne took the Canadian citizenship oath in 1973, neither Canada nor the United States recognized dual citizenship: By taking on one, she shed the other.
"It had a lot to do with the Vietnam era," she explains. "The environment in Canada was the complete opposite of the environment in the United States. In the United States, young people were furious at their government and hated Nixon. In Montreal, people were still on a high from Expo '67."
"When I became a Canadian citizen, I phoned the U.S. consulate to see how it would affect my U.S. citizenship, and I was told clearly, firmly and directly that I was permanently and irrevocably relinquishing my U.S. citizenship. I was told there was no turning back, I was told to think very carefully, because this decision was not reversible, that I was young - I was 22 at the time - and that there was a very good possibility that I would change my mind."
Yet the Law of Nations is the origin of the “
“natural born citizen” meaning.
What is alarming is the ignorance displayed here and the sarcastic attitude toward what should be a MAJOR concern of Americans that the right people are elected to lead them. They dismiss the Constitution as if it doesn’t exist and yet they claim all sorts of Conservative feelings. It is really sad to see. What happened to loyalty to the Constitution?
But the United States statutes do not deal with Natural born. Such statutes can be changed, but the constitution as written requires an Article 5 to change it, together with necessary ratification. That is my understanding. Therefore the original intent of 1789 still stands as there has been no amendment.