A natural born citizen can’t be anything else.
***********************************************************************************************
Right, which is why I object to the concept that NBC should include dual citizenship.
______________________________________________________________________
What Congress can give by passing a law, Congress can take away by passing another law. Congress doesn’t “give” natural born citizenship. A natural born citizen can’t be anything else. Only God can take that away. Any other combination of parents or location are up for grabs (in the hands of Congress)
But, if the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document, words don’t mean anything anyway.
***********************************************************************************
In general I agree with what you wrote. However, I don’t believe that Congress has the power to define the term—they are in charge of immigration/naturalization process which doesn’t apply to NBC.
Therefore, the definition would have to be a constitutional amendment. That may start in Congress if 2/3 agree, but then the states would have to ratify it.
In this scenario, Congress is not “giving” anything—just documenting the definition of NBC for the record—the way it is supposed to be done instead of by activist judges legislating from the bench or by defacto changing requirements by lying/ignoring reality.
Basically we are in agreement on the broad strokes.
“Basically we are in agreement on the broad strokes.”
GE, we agree on more than just the broad strokes. Any discrepancy is likely caused by my failure to proofread my own writing (gets me in trouble every time).
The sentence “Congress “gives” citizenship.” didn’t make the trip in copy/paste. The paragraph should have started as follows:
Congress “gives” citizenship. What Congress can give by passing a law, Congress can take away by passing another law. Congress doesn’t “give” natural born citizenship. ...