Replies

Usually when this is cited as proof of the “UNAMBIGUOUS LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE TERM” natural born citizen they leave off this end part.....

“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.”

The “UNAMBIGUOUS LEGAL DEFINITION” has “doubts”?

Great catch ~ and then there's the 14th Amendment AND, going beyond that, Congress can pass a law illuminating the meaning ~ plus you could pass a Constitutional amendment and change the whole deal.

Interesting that we have folks who want to use a standard that would have only the father's nationality prevail ~ and yet, those same folks have not recently (at least) claimed we should repeal women's suffrage (although I wouldn't be surprised to see them go after it eh!)

Are you reading that right? It says, “...include as *citizens*...”

It does not say, “...include as *natural-born-citizens*...”

Different degrees of citizenship are in play and that is where the confusion lies. An anchor-baby child born in the US to one or two illegal immigrants may be a citizen based on birth jurisdiction (your quote specifically), but that child wouldn’t be eligible to hold the office of POTUS. Similarly, Schwarzenegger is a citizen, and Gov of CA, but can’t be POTUS — those examples are not “natural-born” citizens (holding no birth allegiance to any other nation-state).

The founders set the bar as high. The problem is that they went and articulated that qualification in the Constitution, and try as they might, those wanting this issue to evaporate can’t get around the very succint & simple definition of the term in use at the time of the framing of the constitution: Born in the US to two US citizen parents.

To anyone who disagrees — don’t get angry with me; get angry with those pesky founding fathers. Personally, I’d like to see the issue pursued to *some* clear resolution, if only to preserve the supremacy of the Constitution. To ignore the issue opens the door to ignoring other parts of the Constitution and the statists would dearly *LOVE* to run wild with that mind-set. I think congress and the courts have chipped away at it enough. Don’t you?