Thanks for the math help. The question remains not what Congress did by a statute about naturalization but what the Constitution means. For that, I would look to the decisions of the Supreme Court, which if the quotes in this thread are accurate, has described natural born citizenship only in the context of people born in the USA. We have people jumping up and down on FR claiming it is crazy / off the wall / nuts to have differing views over the meaning of this provision of the Constitution. I do not agree with that. I think we are seeing posters so motivated to support “their guy” that they are launching personal attacks on those who disagree with them, thereby acting like Democrats.
So you defer to the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Interpretation?
So you must agree that unborn children are not human and not entitled to any right to life?
You also must agree that Homosexuals have a Constitutional Right to enter into holy matrimony and that people who disagree ought not to be allowed to be employed in State or Federal bureaucracies?
Yeah, lets defer to the Supreme Court on this one.