Wrong. This tells you who is a citizen at birth (natural born citizen): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html. There is no definition of "natural born" in the Constitution, so you are in error when you assume the parents had to be citizens. In fact, under English common law, which was what was in use in the colonies, the place of birth ALONE determined citizenship. We didn't adopt a new system. We simply continued doing what we had done before independence, under England.
With regard to the common law argument, George Mason, one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, stated: “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” Great Britain used the common law as its justification for impressing American sailors into their navy in the early 19th Century. We obviously did not agree with this interpretation, as we went to war in 1812 over the issue!
How to explain the Elg case?
Natural born citizen requirement for POTUS:
1. U.S. Constitution. Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5
2. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
3. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
The U.S. Consitution and the case law defines that to be eligble for POTUS a person has to be born on American soil to U.S. citizens.
A NBC is a person that is born on American soil to parents that are U.S. citizens.
Wrong. This tells you who is a citizen at birth (natural born citizen):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html. There is no definition of “natural born” in the Constitution, so you are in error when you assume the parents had to be citizens. In fact, under English common law, which was what was in use in the colonies, the place of birth ALONE determined citizenship. We didn’t adopt a new system. We simply continued doing what we had done before independence, under England.
++++++++++++++
Wrong. This is unsettled SCOTUS law related to the Constitutional provision for the POTUS and VPOTUS specifically. The Supremes have hinted at this provision on many occasions.