Replies

You seem to be missing the point. There is no consensus on the definition of natural born citizen. It will have to be resolved in the courts. And you have less credibility and expertise on the issues involved than Tribe and Olson. It matters little what you or I think or the cases you cite.

Only SCOTUS can resolve this issue and they should do it soon. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born. Add to that the fact that 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies are born annually to illegal aliens and you have the ingredients for a major problem in the future.

You seem to be missing the point. There is no consensus on the definition of natural born citizen.

Nowadays there is little consensus, but from 1787 till the last couple of decades, there seemed to be a pretty solid consensus. I know of dozens of quotes from Statesmen, Historians, Law book References, Newspapers, etc. in support of the two citizen requirement. At the moment, I only know of THREE references that indicate otherwise.

Even George Will and Ann Coulter inadvertently weighed in on this issue in opposition to the "Anchor Baby" Theory of citizenship.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38409

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html

Only SCOTUS can resolve this issue and they should do it soon. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. ... Add to that the fact that 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies are born annually to illegal aliens and you have the ingredients for a major problem in the future.

Read the above two links from Coulter and Will for a better insight.