Yes it is clear-cut, but it isn't what you are saying it is. Go back and read post #43 again, a decision from the US Supreme Court explaining exactly what the common law was.
Don’t agree. It depends at what point an alien becomes a resident citizen. Can someone be an alien and yet be a naturalized citizen at the same time.
Is it conceivable that the son or daughter of two illegal mexican aliens could become president, I think not. If birthright alone was the criteria for a natural born citizen, why do we even differentiate in the constitution?
Once again, it gets into the native born versus natural born. And when does an alien not become an alien, after he/she obtains citizenship? Define alien as they did in 16th and 17th century England. I believe it defines those not born under British jurisdiction, but those who obtained citizenship through immigration or by being declared such by British conquest. To attempt to use 17th/18th century definitions to apply to 21st century America invites only confusion. Back then, for example, many of those who immigrated from colonies to England had neither the financial means nor the capabilities to do so, but they were British citizens even before they arrived on England’s shores, yet were problably considered aliens in England.
The bottom line is that there are serious doubts about what natural born citizenship is and the Democrats should have fully investigated obama’s citizenship credentials before ever nominating him.