Page 401 U. S. 817
The plaintiff's father has always been a citizen of Italy, and never has acquired United States citizenship. The plaintiff's mother, however, was born in Philadelphia in 1915
same scenario as Ted Cruz, foreign father, US citizen mother, born in a foreign country
Page 401 U. S. 827...
It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born, and, at the same time, to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship. Of course, Congress obviously felt that way, too, about the two expatriation provisions invalidated by the decisions in Schneider and Afroyim.
We look again, then, at the Constitution, and further indulge in history's assistance:
Of initial significance, because of its being the foundation stone of the Court's decisional structure in Afroyim, and, perhaps by a process of after-the-fact osmosis of the earlier Schneider as well, is the Fourteenth Amendment's opening sentence:
“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.”
The central fact in our weighing of the plaintiff's claim to continuing and therefore current United States citizenship is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei. He simply is not a “Fourteenth Amendment first sentence” citizen. His posture contrasts with that of Mr. Afroyim, who was naturalized in the United States, and with that of Mrs. Schneider, whose citizenship was derivative by her presence here and by her mother's naturalization here.
Page 401 U. S. 828
The plaintiff's claim thus must center in the statutory power of Congress and in the appropriate exercise of that power within the restrictions of any pertinent constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment's first sentence.
The reach of congressional power in this area is readily apparent:
1. Over 70 years ago, the Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, reviewed and discussed early English statutes relating to rights of inheritance and of citizenship of persons born abroad of parents who were British subjects. United States v. Won Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 668-671 (1898). The Court concluded that “naturalization by descent” was not a common law concept, but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment. The statutes examined were 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 29 Car. 2, c. 6 (1677); 7 Anne, c. 5, § 3 (1708); 4 Geo. 2, c. 21 (1731); and 13 Geo. 3, c. 21 (1773). Later, Mr. Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, referred to this “very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray,” and observed
“that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute. . . .”
Now go read the rest of the 1971 SCOTUS ruling that took place 1 year after Cruz was born, however, was a case in which the plaintiff's situation at birth was exactly the same as Ted Cruz. The SCOTUS ruled that Bellei was “naturalized at birth, just as the SCOTUS had determined to be the case over 100 years ago. Rogers v. Bellei has never been overruled, therefore, its decision is still valid and it applies to Ted Cruz who by law is a naturalized US citizen.
I have read it in great detail, long ago.
But you do not even read what you post.
Rogers v. Bellie says:
“He was not naturalized in the United States.”
See? You cannot be naturalized at birth.
Rogers v. Bellei does NOT say that Bellei was naturalized at birth, because such a thing is impossible.
Bellei was made a citizen at birth.
Otherwise, what was there to be taken away?
How can the courts take away citizenship if Bellei never had it?
And what does this mean in Rogers v. Bellei:
““that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law EXCEPT BY STATUTE. . . .””
So, in 1790 those who wrote the Constitution passed a statute, and Congress has been enacting different variations ever since.