>>...It never did. This was just some garbage that birthers made up...<<
Legally through court precedence and in defiance of common-sense, perhaps “NBC” is defined oddly.
If Canadian parents snuck over the border just long enough to drop a kid, what birthright citizenships and allegiances could that child claim? Perhaps Canadian and US?
If a child was born in the US of one US citizen and one German citizen, what birthright citizenships and allegiances could that child claim? Perhaps German and US?
If a child is born on US soil of two US citizens, what other birthright citizenships and allegiances could that child **possibly** claim? I’d say that child was *NATURALLY* a US citizen with *NO* other natural birth allegiances.
To argue that the founding fathers, intended for anyone with a foreign birth allegiance to become POTUS is silly in the extreme, else why differentiate between “Natural Born Citizen” for President and just “Citizen” otherwise? It’s similar mental gymnastics that gun-haters attempt when they try to define the word “People” in the phrase “the right of the people” in the 2nd amendment as meaning something entirely different than the word “people” in any other amendment.
You may feel the courts are infallible. I don’t. It’s too easy to prove they defy common sense in many occasions. “Wickard v. Filburn” anyone?
What kind of name is Malihi? Hawaiian?
They did it to exclude naturalized citizens. They were thinking of the situation, which was not uncommon in those days (think of William and Mary), of the royalty from one country coming to another country to rule.
The judge in Georgia has just, effectively stated that the heir apparent to the French crown is now eligible.
I believe this is precisely the situation the framers were concerned about when they changed the requirement during the summer of 1787 from "citizen" to "natural born Citizen."