HALEY’S EXIT CRUSHES THE HOPES OF PEOPLE WHO REFUSED TO LEARN THE DEFINITION OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
She is a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States to parents legally within the United States - within the realm under the authority of the realm, which is what that phrase meant when the Framers wrote it. This is has also been adjudicated multiple times. Even a cursory amount of research would reveal that - so those who would argue otherwise are those who refuse to learn.
If only it were so, but they are yet enjoying their Obama high.
I pointed out elsewhere a few days ago that almost every point in WR's viewpoint of NBC is incorrect.
By merely requiring the parents to be "within the realm" WR downgrades NBC to essentially no more than a 14thAd form of citizenship (and even the legitimacy of that form is doubtful).
If the founders had intended such form they could have used "citizen" in Art2 as they used it elsewhere in the Constitution for government officials. But they went much further and specifically required that the highest official in the government was to be NBC.
So it appears WR misses the essential part of NBC: it was the citizenship of the parents that was crucial, the mere presence of the parents was not sufficient. Having been seriously mistreated by England's royalty and having just fought a bloody battle with them the last thing we wanted was that a member of family would soon be our president.
This is quite obvious if only because of the time waiver the founders saw necessary to include in the language; they acknowledged that no citizen would have parents that were already born in the new country as of the first day of its existence, and they provided for that.
The only correct point in WR's view of the issue is that "it has been adjudicated". This is somewhat true since one, or perhaps two, state supreme courts (not federal courts) have held that NBC did not require two citizen parents. Such cases might establish the law in those states until they are reversed or the USSC finally addresses the issue.
WR is free, of course, to explain any defect in my reasoning and I welcome a response.