As a rule, I don’t like to rely on Laurence Tribe, on his interpretation of American constitutional law, or on the Harvard Law Review, but here is their well-documented history of the constitutional phrase natural born:
The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law 3 and enactments of the First Congress.4 Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
I think this should lay to rest once and for all the question whether Ted Cruz meets the constitutional standard to be President.
Oh, that means, YES he does, because his mother was and is a US citizen.
the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 8 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” 9
Yes again, because his father was and is a resident in the US.
But this should raise another birther problem. No, Marco Rubio does NOT meet the constitutional standard to be President. Yes, he was born here, but his parents were not US citizens, just legal immigrants a.k.a. permanent residents, at that time. Both became US citizens after Marco was born. In sum, he was (1) born in the US, (2) raised by US citizens in the US, but (3) not born to US citizens.
As Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 used to say, Missed it by THAT much.
Funny how people attack Cruz, but not Rubio, on this issue. Could the reason be that Cruz is a real conservative, and Rubio is widely perceived to be the establishment’s fall back position if/when/finally JEB fades away?