Within the last few minutes Mr Cruz has renounced his Canadian citizenship.

I haven't read too much into this so....

 

Is it possible that the difference between Mr McCain's situation and Mr Cruz' is that Mr Cruz automatically became a Canadian citizen in addition to a US citizen? If that's not the issue then I'm confused as to what the debate is.

 

Could be? I dunno either

What did they rule? I thought I read they had not ruled on it.

 

Minor v. Hapersett

 

"...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens..."

 

This is an actual ruling (it is not dicta, but core to the ruling) of SCOTUS. It was unanimous. It has never been overturned. This ruling has been cited in other SCOTUS rulings dealing with citizenship. No other definition has ever been explicietly provided by the court. No other explicit alternative definition has ever been part of a SCOTUS ruling since this one.

Minor v. Hapersett

 

"...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens..."

 

This is an actual ruling (it is not dicta, but core to the ruling) of SCOTUS. It was unanimous. It has never been overturned. This ruling has been cited in other SCOTUS rulings dealing with citizenship. No other definition has ever been explicietly provided by the court. No other explicit alternative definition has ever been part of a SCOTUS ruling since this one.

 

Here's what I found.

 

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

 

 

In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. The first class consists of children born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consists of all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents' citizenship. The Court used the term "natural born citizen" only in reference to the first class. Regarding members of the second class, the Court doubted they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. In the Court's opinion, natural born citizens are "distinguished from" aliens or foreigners, suggesting that a natural born citizen is someone who is not a "foreigner" (foreign citizen) at birth [05].

Could be? I dunno either

 

McCain's situation was challenged. The situation offers some grey area. McCain had something that both Obama and Cruz did not - two American Citizen Parents so he has a better claim. In fact - if the Immigration act of 1790 had remained in effect he would be home free of potential issues.

 

But McCain was being birthered all the way back to 1998 by WaPo.

 

Washingtonpost.com: Political Junkie

 

 

In 2008 WaPo was running pro-citizen stories on McCain.

 

Fact Checker - Citizen McCain

 

But NYT was still stirring pot with some pretty specific stuff.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=1&

 

This story cites a report by a Michigan Law Professor. The net of it is that the canal zene was specifically not under US jurisdiction and thus the 14th Amendment did not apply to McCain.

 

"At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

 

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth."

Here's what I found.

 

Presidential Eligibility Tutorial

 

 

In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. The first class consists of children born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consists of all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents' citizenship. The Court used the term "natural born citizen" only in reference to the first class. Regarding members of the second class, the Court doubted they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. In the Court's opinion, natural born citizens are "distinguished from" aliens or foreigners, suggesting that a natural born citizen is someone who is not a "foreigner" (foreign citizen) at birth [05].

 

If people refuse to read the words in front of them its no wonder there are issues. This is reference to the cited story. Granted the reading here requires some parsing.

 

Here is the full paragraph of the ruling:

 

Source: Minor v. Happersett

 

 

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

 

 

What the court was doing was side stepping the 'anchor baby' issue of the 14th amendment. This would come back to the court in Wong Kim Ark.

 

Ms. Virgina was claiming that the 14th Amendment gave her suffrage rights. But the court found and ruled that she was natural born citizen - and that trumped the 14th Amendment argument. Since Ms. Virgina was a natural born citizen - the 14th Amendment did not govern her voting rights as a citizen.

 

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

 

So the referenced argument is incorrect. The contrast is between natural born citizens and those born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. It is not a contrast to foreigners - as incorrectly cited.