A naturalized citizen can have his or her citizenship revoked and be deported, BUT a Natural Born Citizen or a born citizen CANNOT, not ever. An anchor baby COULD be compelled to leave with its illegal parents but has absolute right of return after her 18th birthday.
Just exactly WHERE do you deport an NBC TO???
I was starting to think you might have some merit in your arguments when you pulled this one out your Pelosi. How do I know all this? My dealings with immigration to get my LEGAL wife her green card. Now going through it for her son. I am an NBC, btw. Born IN the U. S., of citizen parents whose families go back to the Mayflower.
There is SOME merit to the argument that someone born to a military family on a US base abroad can claim NBC-ship, as there usually are Status of Forces agreements which cover such things. Others born abroad are NOT NBCs, especially if the father is not a citizen, by birth or otherwise. They may be birthright citizens, depending on the law at time of birth, but are not qualified for the presidency.
That's actually not true.
In the mid 1800s, Congress passed a law stripping American women of their United States citizenship if they married an alien.
There were instances of women who had been born in the United States, of United States citizen parents, who had lived their entire lives in the United States and never set foot outside of the USA, who were indisputably and absolutely natural born citizens even according to the silly birther definition, who were completely stripped of their United States citizenship.
The US Supreme Court upheld the law.
Why is this relevant? Because birthers falsely claim that cases like Roger v. Bellei are "proof" that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
Bellei was born a United States citizen, but stripped of his citizenship by failure to meet US residency requirements imposed by Congress to maintain that citizenship.
The birther argument is that if he had been a natural born citizen he could not have been stripped of his citizenship by act of Congress.
Therefore, such people aren't natural born citizens. Voila.
Except that - like virtually every birther argument - it fails catastrophically in the light of reality.
The fact that persons born in the United States of US citizen parents (in some cases undoubtedly going back for generations) have been stripped of their citizenship shows CONCLUSIVELY that this is just another failed argument out of literally dozens.
In fact, there's not a single birther argument that doesn't fail when you really look at it.
A more to-the-point way of saying this is that birtherism as a whole is simply BS.
But birthers will continue to do what they do. Which is: imagine that they really understand the history and the law, and that those of us who actually do understand the history and the law, who've done the research and thought through all the issues and all of the claims, are "ignorant."
Just exactly WHERE do you deport an NBC TO???
In the case of American women who were stripped of their citizenship, as far as I know, they didn't deport them to anywhere.
They continued to live in the towns they grew up in. But they weren't citizens. And if they left the country with their husbands, they might well not have been allowed back in.
The law, of course, was eventually changed. And the citizenship of these women was restored.
But not until after the act was upheld by the Supreme Court.
I was starting to think you might have some merit in your arguments when you pulled this one out your Pelosi. How do I know all this? My dealings with immigration to get my LEGAL wife her green card. Now going through it for her son. I am an NBC, btw. Born IN the U. S., of citizen parents whose families go back to the Mayflower.Good for you. You can run for President if you wish.
And if you and your non-citizen wife have a child, that child can run for President as well. Because that child will be born a citizen, and legally, that's basically all that "natural born citizen" means. Born a US citizen.
There is SOME merit to the argument that someone born to a military family on a US base abroad can claim NBC-ship, as there usually are Status of Forces agreements which cover such things. Others born abroad are NOT NBCs, especially if the father is not a citizen, by birth or otherwise. They may be birthright citizens, depending on the law at time of birth, but are not qualified for the presidency.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But there doesn't seem to be one single contemporary legal scholar of any note anywhere who agrees with you.
Historical scholars don't agree with you as well. Take, for example, James Bayard, who wrote an exposition of the Constitution of the United States back in 1834. In his section on Presidential eligibility, Bayard wrote:
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1834)
Bayard's book was approved by Chief Justice John Marshall, "The Great Chief Justice," who assumed his office just 13 years after the Constitution was ratified, and then dominated the Court for the next 35 years.
Chief Justice Marshall read Bayard's book and sent him a letter correcting him that Congress didn't need to get permission from the States to build postal and military roads. They already had it.
Other than that, the Chief Justice approvingly noted, he couldn't think of a single thing that Bayard had written in his exposition of the Constitution that wasn't entirely correct.