Singular Citizenship "by birth" vs. Dual Citizenship "at birth"

Singular Citizenship vs. Dual Citizenship

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on OpinioJuris.org on March 23, 2015.

>> http://opiniojuris.org/2015/03/22/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-72777

<<>>

The opinion is offered about Obama and Cruz that to contest dual U.S./foreign citizenship is lame: “…a lame claim that he is a dual citizen.”

It seems that some people still refuse to consider and adduce “natural born Citizen” author John Jay, who became the first Supreme Court Chief Justice in President Washington’s first administration in 1789, and who knew something about the original intent of words and the legal implications of those words.

The issue, no pun intended, is not positive law but natural law; not “how” a child is born, head first or c-section, but “what” a child is “at” birth “by” birth, by simply being born.

If a child is born c-section OR head first, the child is a “natural born Citizen by birth when born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation which is possible by ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Dual U.S./foreign citizenship, which is the citizenship status that Sen. Cruz acquired by statute (INA: ACT Sec. 301) “at” birth in Canada by being born to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent definitely was not John Jay’s “original genesis original intent” for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to this friend George Washington.

Dual U.S./foreign citizenship would have been incongruent and incoherent to the 1787 framers of Article II Section 1 clause 5, and to the states’ ratifiers, including “natural born Citizen” author and New York ratifier John Jay.

When will the “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birthers admit that John Jay’s “natural born Citizen” original genesis original intent meaning was intended to be perpetual, and the perpetual original meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship can not be changed by any statute from 1790 to 2015.

It was not changed by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act–INA: ACT Sec. 301 [8 U.S.C. 1401], clauses “a” and “g”–NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH.

It was not changed by the 1868 Fouteenth Amendment and the first six words of the first sentence of Section 1, “All persons born or naturalized...are citizens...”.

It was not changed by the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court decision that held that the original intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment included, the Court simply “declared,” that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” with the implicit ability to vote, and as some 2008-2015 Obama new meaning neo-birthers and 2014-2015 Rubio, Gindal and Cruz new meaning neo-birthers assert, eligible to be POTUS.

The “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birthers don’t have John Jay’s “original genesis original intent” as a defense so they simply ignore the “nbC” author. That is par for the course from 2008 to 2015.

But, hey, we’re still friends and fellow Americans, even if the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers have a lame defense for their 2000s theory that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, which implies ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship, makes a person "...eligible to the Office of President" whilc ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents is one U.S. citizen parent too much, superfluous and irrelevant. If ONLY one is necessary, then ONLY two is not necessary to consider.

Right?

John Jay is spinning in his grave.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )