I don’t understand the simplicity definition for ‘natural born’. If I take one view then the children of the Muslim President of Egypt could be POTUSA because they were born in the USA when the father was college prof in the USA. Also under that simple correlation any anchor baby could come back in later years to the USA and be POTUSA. In another take the reason/basis for the Founders at their time for being explicit as to ‘natural’ shows a judgement of concern that applies even today.
Of course that is the implication noinfringers2, and a good indication that those, Obots or not, who claim that a natural born citizen is a “jus soli”, citizen or a citizen made so by birthplace, are wrong. The popular term “anchor baby” is rooted in a case called Wong Kim Ark, addressing whether a San Francisco born man, born to domiciled non-citizen parents is a citizen. The decision was interpreted to make children born on our soil, not to visiting officials of another country, naturalized citizens. Being naturalized in our society means being made a citizen by an act of Congress. Such laws have the 14th Amendment as their foundation - the “Naturalization Amendment.” Natural citizens, common law from which the definitions of our Constitution were drawn, are “born on our soil to citizen parents.” The Obots will simply lie about the dozens of statements in Supreme Court case law repeating what I just said. Even the justice who wrote Wong Kim Ark, resulting in Anchor Babies, made Wong Kim, born on our soil, a naturalized citizen. Justice Gray both cited and quoted the passage I quoted earlier in this thread from Minor v. Happersett, which made the definition into positive, or decided law.
Being born anywhere to US citizens makes a child a naturalizable citizen, though such citizenship established by law can be forefit. Being born a citizen, a citizen by by nature, of citizen parents on our soil, cannot be denied by man. That was part of a decision from a case, Perkins v. Elg, decided by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in 1939. Marie Elg was born in New York to naturalized Swedish parents. Her father got a job opportunity in Sweden, and returned, eventually repudiating his US Citizenship. Her mother and Marie followed after a year or two, mom also renewing her sole allegiance to Sweden and repudiating US citizenship. Marie wanted to return to the US at her majority, 19 or 20, but was rejected by our State Department. The case ended up in the Supreme Court.
Even though Marie was raised in Sweden, by Swedish parents, she was a natural born citizen of the US, a form of citizenship that cannot be revoked. It is the only class of citizen defined in our Constitution, since each sovereign state had its own rule for who were citizens. Justice Hughes opined that Marie, if she chose, could run for president after 14 years residence and reaching the age of 35 years. All those acts of congress, being born to one citizen overseas, two citizens overseas, no citizens on our soil, come from the 14th Amendment, and constitute naturalization at birth, but not natural born citizenship, relevant for those seeking the presidency. NBC was handy for Marie Elg as well as for a German boy, Steinkuler, taken back to Germany after being born to naturalized parents.
If we ignore those for whom the Constitution “won't let me do what I believe our country needs, and enforce the law of our founders, presidents will be “born on our soil to parents who are its citizens”. Only two, Barack Obama and Chester Arthur have violated Article II Section 1. Arthur too hid his birth certificate, but that was to distract from his father's British citizenship. Arthur's ineligiblity was only discovered in 2008, by an attorney, Leo Donofrio, pursuing the issue of Obamas's eligibilty, as he fought for the rights of auto dealers denied their franchises because they donated to Republicans.
Barack/Barry probably has a birth certificate, but he has told us who his father was, again and again. If we take him at his word, and the words he has used to describe himself, Barack is a naturalized citizen, because his mother was a citizen when he was born. Barack told us he was born a British Subject. There is no argument about that. He has said, in effect, that we have lived by old rules, and an old and irrelevant historical document. We have allowed him to ignore the Constitution. The media have helped protect him, while they were quite lucid in reporting for ten years about the rules which made John McCain ineligible.
You can create any number of scenarios which show the wisdom of our founders and framers, including the work of state ratification teams working furiously during the late 1780s. Sudanese Jihadists cross the border into Arizona. They live on welfare, their children attending schools for which we pay, and attending college using federal funding for illegal immigrant students, The Dream Act. They attend the Wahhabi Mosque (one of four) in Scotsdale, and attend Harvard Law on a grant from Harvard's Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Islamic Studies, Bin Talal being Obama's patron during his Harvard days, according to Malcolm X's attorney, Percy Sutton. One child runs for president, the other for Attorney General. No law prevents siblings from holding simultaneous offices in The Executive Branch. They succeed in making our military and federal courts Sharia compliant.
That is why so many Mexican illegals come to America to have their babies. If the baby is born in an American hospital, the 14th Amendment declares them American citizens and yes they are eligible to be President.
Now if you get a good lawyer and can convince Ruth Bader Ginsburg otherwise, well you have yourself a real chance to get that overturned! Good luck.
And this is something these idiots simply cannot grasp. Their theory completely contradicts the PURPOSE for which article II was created. If they are correct, article two cannot prevent foreign influence in the Presidency; an absurd result, as you pointed out above.