Nice enough diagram. But it is based on theory unsupported by virtually every legal authority in history. And by history itself.
That's your opinion, based upon your selective interpretation of historical evidence.
As I've told you before, the Natural Born Citizen topic has been discussed in great depth for many years on this forum, and anyone who followed those conversations during the first two years of Obama's time in office, has heard every conceivable side of the argument.
One of the more scholarly posts on the subject was penned by Freeper Sourcery in January 2012. Here's an excerpt, and a link to the full article. I highly recommend reading all of it:
"The Constitution requires that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen:
Article II, section 1, pa. 5: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
If "natural born citizen" is a synonym for "citizen," then there is no reason for adding the exception "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." None at all. Being a citizen is not sufficient, unless you happened to be alive when the Constitution was adopted.
So what, then, is a "natural born citizen"? To answer that question definitively will require a full examination of the concepts and history of citizenship.
Types Of Citizenship: Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis, Natural Born, Native Born, Naturalized
Jus soli citizenship: "Jus soli" is a Latin phrase meaning "law of the soil." Jus soli citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on the location of his or her birth.
Jus sanguinis citizenship: "Jus sanguinis" is a Latin phrase meaning "law of the blood." Jus sanguinis citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on his or her ancestry.
Native born citizenship: A native born citizen is one whose citizenship derives from the facts of his birth, and who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth. In both US and British law, those born within the sovereign territory of the country or born to parents who are citizens (subjects) of the country when the person is born are native citizens (subjects.) Native born persons are said to have "birthright citizenship." Note that one can be "native born" either by the "jus soli" principle or by the "jus sanguinis" principle.
Naturalized citizenship: A naturalized citizen is one whose citizenship is granted as a political act—by law or by the decision or act of a sovereign.
Natural born citizenship: A natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is not granted by law or by any act of a sovereign, but inheres naturally in the person from birth according to principles that don't depend on laws or decisions of a sovereign. The rest of this essay will fully justify this definition.
The Constitution of the United States did not originally explicitly define who did or did not not qualify as citizens. It originally had clauses where the general term citizen occurs, and had one clause where the specific term natural born citizen occurs (quoted above.) But the Constitution does grant Congress the power to define by law who shall be citizens:
Congress shall have power….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization [Article I, Section 8]
Why did the Constitution limit the power it granted Congress over matters of citizenship to naturalization? Because Citizenship acquired solely by any law passed by Congress cannot logically be anything other than naturalized citizenship—by definition of naturalization. It's logically impossible for any act of Congress to make anyone a citizen by natural law. At most, such a law would be declaratory of natural law—because a citizen by natural law is a citizen no matter what laws Congress may or may not enact.
In fact, given the Founders' understanding of natural law versus man-made law, it would have been a logical contradiction to grant Congress the power to change or define natural law on any subject, not just regarding citizenship—because natural law, by late 18th-century definition, cannot be made by a legislature or head of state. That's why Congress was granted no such powers in any domain at all. Such a power could be used, among other things. to change the meaning of words, including those in the Constitution itself. The dangers of that should be obvious."
Oh, so now you're a critic, lol?
You might want to star contradicting yourself regarding history again. It's not your strong suit. Does the word "Civitas" ring any bells?
- Cicero, Marcus Tullius
No it isn't. You are just misrepresenting the positions of every authority in History. Most of them are like Bingham. They state the general rule, never considering that people would be so stupid as to suggest this also qualifies the very small number of exceptions.
Bingham makes it clear that the exceptions were never intended to be regarded as citizens. Others simply don't address the issue of transient aliens. It is simply fortunate that Bingham did, and it is readily apparent that his understanding of the exceptions are also the understanding of the rest of Congress, and for that matter, very likely the Wong Court as well.
It is not only sheer stupidity to grant citizenship to the children of transient aliens, It is demonstrably NOT the position of any of the authorities whom you persist in invoking. It is just YOU, and people like you who are pushing this meme. Bingham never intended "anchor babies." It is ridiculous to think that he, or anyone else ever did.