On 1/20/2016 9:12 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
:

John McCoy wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

The only relevant thing is what the actual
law is: children born abroad, with at least one parent a U.S.
citizen, are themselves U.S. citizens *by birth*, i.e.
"natural-born".

The law doesn't say that. What the law says is children born
as you describe are "native citizens". The law doesn't anywhere
define what a "natural born" citizen is.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...f-natural-born
-citizen/

Um, the only actual law referenced in that article is the
naturalization act of 1790, which has long since been
superceded. As far as I know, there is no current law
which defines "natural born citizen" (and I think if there
was, the current discussion about Cruz would not be
happening).

The relevant current law, as far as I can tell, is
8 USC 1401.

Note that I'm not asserting Cruz isn't a natural born
citizen. Just that the term is not explicitly defined
under current law.

(just as an aside, under the act of 1790 Cruz would definately
not be a natural born citizen, so it's good for him that it
no longer applies).

John


I think to sum all of this, is he or isn't he speculation, you can
probably rest assured that if he was not, the opposing party would have
come up with undeniable defined and clear proof that he was not.
But as our leaders and law makers have always done and will continue to
do they leave the waters just muddy enough so that they can interpret
their laws and rules the way they choose.