“Dual citizenship does not mean he wasn’t a natural born citizen”
I’d like to hear more about the reasoning behind this as well. Where does it say that a dual-citizen, or a non-citizen, or simply being born here like an anchor baby, is considered a natural born citizen, qualified for the office of the president? It’s contradictory to the obvious loyalty requirements. One could strongly argue that any ruling that even grants anchor babies citizenship at all is wholly un-Constitutional, but to then say this might also grant them natural born citizen status and be qualified to be the president of the entire country, is absurd on the face of it.
Exactly!
To have both British and U.S. Citizenship, or
Russian and U.S. Citizenship, or
Chinese and U.S. Citizenship, etc.
AT birth....would NOT make that person a NBC no matter where that person was born!
If that were the case, the framers of our Constitution would not have had to put "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" in Article II section I.
There would be Zero need to do so, if they thought that having British citizenship at birth themselves...but later U.S. citizenship via the Declaration of Independance meant they still meet the NBC clause.
There is no Supreme Court case that has explicitly discussed this in terms of eligibility for President, but the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court's leading decision on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, says that there are only two classes of citizens-- naturalized and natural born. If someone was born here, he wasn't naturalized, and is therefore natural born.
Obama has made no secret of his dual citizenship from birth, but no one-- not Hillary in the primaries, not McCain in the general election, no court, and no member of the House and Senate when they met to certify the electoral votes-- has questioned his status as a NBC.
I have yet to hear of a Supreme Court case that recognizes any type of citizenship for so-called ‘anchor babies,” let alone the natural born variety. It is a commonly held belief that they are citizens but when has SCOTUS ruled that they are such? Never, apparently.