Congress, by simple legislation, can deny Citizenship to “Anchor Babies”
Congress can make anchor babies citizens, that is true, but they cannot amend the United States Constitution Article I without going through the Constitutional amendment process.
Article II and Amendment 14 forms of citizenship are different. All natural born citizens are citizens, but the reverse is not true. Not all citizens are Natural Born Citizens.
Congress has only once defined Natural Born Citizenship in the First Congress, Second Session, which was a person born in the US with two citizen parents. It was a definition found in a law concerning the naturalization process to make clear that NBCs need not go through the naturalization process.
There is no current definition on the books of which I am aware. The former statute, drafted by the framers who wrote the Constitution, is the best evidence of the framers’ intent (found in the second half of the law). Here is the text:
FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 4. 1790
CHAP. III.—An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and Hours of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
APPROVED, March 26, 1790.
Repealed January 29, 1795.
Mark Rubio is not an NBC because his parents did not become citizens (”naturalized”)until after his birth. I understand there are issues with Bobby Jindal as well, though I am not familiar with his case. Others have argued about Romney as well. There may be others. It matters to many people, and it is a rule that should be honored.
The same definition was provided in all of the scholarly legal works at the time of founding.
The only people who disagree with this are those with a non-NBC candidate they are supporting. I see little if any legal authority which challenges this precedent.
That's right. Any form of citizenship that is provided for via statute enacted by men can be revoked or bestowed as the laws change. There is one type of citizenship however, that cannot be bestowed or revoked by statute, and that is natural born citizenship: A person born on US soil to parentS who are themselves citizens. They are citizens by virtue of Natural Law and such their citizenship status cannot be created or nullified by any legal contrivance of man. They just are.
In the words of Minor vs Happersett: If the intent (and it absolutely was) of the founders was to attempt to the greatest degree possible to mitigate the potential for divided loyalties in the person to be entrusted with the presidential levers of power, then a person with no presumed potential for divided loyalties at all by virtue of the US citizenship of both parents is obviously and logically to be superior in regard to natural born citizenship status than someone who has one or more parents holding foreign allegiance, no matter where the presumed citizen (there are doubts about these kind, according to Minor) is born.
Logic Fail- Ping. (Apologies to anyone I missed, and to anyone peeved that I Pinged them unsolicited. I just thought it funny that this hadn't been addressed more thoroughly)