OMG, he ain’t an “alien.” You are the one who is regurgitating the Birther Lies.
Here’s you a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America
And I don’t want to hear any of that typical Birther “But I don’t like the site” nonsense. The statements have links to the appropriate legal citations.
And in spite of what you think about “liberal statist” judges (which is kinda backwards, cause its the strict constructionist “conservative” who are usually more “statist”, but that’s another law lesson for another time) their decisions have the force of law.
Now if you are “doing this for the Constitution” as you Birthers claim, then once again, PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Recognize the law whether you like it or not and give it your respect.
parsy, who is doing his best to educate you
page 666:
http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm
http://www.jstor.org/pss/27530990
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=toc&pg=PA61&id=IsJOmPyODiwC#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm
Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”(46)
Although this legal history was never explicitly addressed at the Constitutional Convention, Morse's view is similar to a statement by Charles Pinckney in 1800, namely, that the presidential eligibility clause is designed “to insure ... attachment to the country” on the part of the President. This statement is discussed in more detail below.
Morse also emphasizes the difference between the terms “native-born” and “natural-born.” The dictionary, which follows the English precedents, defines “native-born” as “belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein” and “natural-born” as “having a specified status or character by birth.”(47) If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, Morse writes, “it would only have been necessary to say, ‘no person, except a native-born citizen.’”(48)
This statement from Professor Yinger as well as his conclusion states specifically that children born to American parent(S), yes both are the ‘natural born’ citizens and is also backed by the census records of 1790-1880 which is in the 1st link above beginning on page 666. The United States did NOT adopt any form of dual citizenship when ratifying the constitution and that is backed by the current US State Dept's statement: US law does not recognize dual citizenship.
So, in other words, “I HAVE PUT UP”, but I will not demand you to shut up, That is just plain rude and not in the nature of a patriotic & conservative constitutionalist.
Let me know when you are ready for more like the above. My library is deep.