In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, the Court of Appeals noted as part of the basis for their decision that...
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 [found that] {W]hen the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.
It appears the Supreme Court in Elg (1939) agrees.
What matters is what the ratifiers of the Constitution considered a natural born citizen (NBC) was. Again, the Constitution is properly applied as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and intended.
The Supreme Court decisions based soundly on the good-faith finding of original understanding of NBC in the Constitution is, therefore, legal precedent concerning NBC. Thus, Vivek should be considered an NBC.
Common sense dictates that as the definition of insanity.
Not only does it place the children of these invaders above those who followed the law of this land to become citizens, it places them on par with an actual Natural Born Citizen.
The Supreme Court riled incorrectly, as it has done on a number of issues since that incorrect ruling. Everyone at the time the amendment was passed, ratified & became law, that it was addressing those children born of people who were brought to this country against their will & desire that subsequently created offspring, their offspring were indeed to be considered as NBC.
There was indeed a Chinese slave trade/human trafficking that was ongoing during that period, especially on the west coast state of California which had its base in San Francisco. Now if the Chinese man could prove that he was a product of that slave trade/human trafficking, then he would indeed have passed the test, and the Supreme Court ruling was justified.
This issue was never a problem, until the Democrats started using the 14th amendment as justification to create more citizens to become their constituents, by making the argument that the 14th amendment was really granting citizenship via jus soli, citing that the UK, Canada & Australia have always provided citizenship on this basis, and there are now 33 nations that recognize jus sole.
Do the all recognize the children of illegal invaders who give birth in those countries grant citizenship to the children? That I do not know the answer to that question, or the question as to what other considerations may exist in granting citizenship upon their children by virtue of being born there. We know that the U.S. does not recognize the children of American citizens when those citizens have not reside in the U.S. for 14 years, unless those parents were on assignment overseas in service for the U.S. government.
But jus soli is not extended to the parents. They should either be deported & the child taken for adoption, unless the parents want to take the child with them. But regardless, these children are still not NBC, even if the parents were here legally, but had not attained formal U.S. citizenship via the naturalization process. Their children are granted citizenship, but they are still not viewed as NBC.