Actually, you have to be crazy to imagine that the Founders, who lived in an era in which it took an arduous and dangerous journey of weeks if not months to reach the United States, ever considered the possibility of “birth tourism.”
The argument is this: Birth tourism is a bad thing. (So far, I think pretty much everyone will agree on that.)
The Founding Fathers did not “intend” birth tourism (I think we can pretty much all agree on that as well.)
THEREFORE (and here’s where it gets tricky)
either:
a) The Founding Fathers could not possibly have intended children born on US soil of non-citizen (immigrant) parents to be natural born citizens, OR
b) Even if they did intend children of non-citizen (immigrant) parents to be natural born citizens, we should today “reinterpret” their words as if they hadn’t, because we don’t like the consequences of that, OR
c) IF they had known that 225 years in the future, we would have jet airplanes and birth tourism, then they WOULD HAVE established a rule that persons born on US soil had to have citizen parents as well in order to be eligible to the Presidency. Therefore, we should assume that they did create such a rule, or interpret the Constitution as if they did.
The first option, a, is an obvious fallacy. Even assuming that they didn’t want birth tourism, it doesn’t follow that the Framers of the Constitution regarded the children born here of resident non-citizens as not being natural born US citizens. And virtually all of our history, law and early legal quotes strongly indicate against the idea.
The second option, b, is simply a position that the Constitution ought to mean whatever we want it to mean, or whatever we think it’s “good” that it means. This is a liberal, “living Constitution” approach. It is NOT a conservative approach, that values and conserves the Constitution AS IT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
In fact, it’s not surprising to see the author of this piece, Mara Zebest, a liberal, a Democrat and a disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporter with a grudge against the current President, take this “living Constitution” view. What is surprising is to see some supposed conservatives doing it.
c) is the best argument of the three: That IF the Founding Fathers, writing in 1787, had known that we would have jet airplanes and birth tourism in the year 2013, then they WOULD HAVE established a rule that persons born on US soil had to have citizen parents as well in order to be eligible to the Presidency.
However, this idea fails for much the same reason that item b) does.
If we adopt this approach and attitude toward the United States Constitution, we can just as easily argue that SURELY the Founding Fathers WOULD HAVE wanted ALL Americans to have health care. Surely the Founding Fathers WOULD HAVE wanted young women to be free from the burden of having a child through an unplanned pregnancy. Surely they WOULD HAVE wanted us to take care of everyone who needs taking care of, and WOULD HAVE wanted all American children to be safe from the fear of guns.
The fact is, you can justify just about any rewrite of the Constitution that anybody would like, by playing the game of “the Founders WOULD HAVE wanted this.”
None of these is the proper approach for anyone who actually values and respects the Constitution.
That approach is not to ask, “What WOULD the Framers have wanted?” That approach is to ask, “WHAT DID THEY ACTUALLY SPECIFY?”
And on this point, history is clear. At least, it’s clear to everyone except for the birthers, who desperately want the Framers to have specified that it takes two citizen parents plus birth on US soil to make a natural born citizen.
Every early legal authority of any note at all indicates that the rule for “natural born citizen” was exactly the same as the rule for “natural born subject,” the phrase that it replaced in our laws, except for the difference between “citizen” and “subject.”
b) Even if they did intend children of non-citizen (immigrant) parents to be natural born citizens, we should today “reinterpret” their words as if they hadn’t, because we don’t like the consequences of that, OR
c) IF they had known that 225 years in the future, we would have jet airplanes and birth tourism, then they WOULD HAVE established a rule that persons born on US soil had to have citizen parents as well in order to be eligible to the Presidency. Therefore, we should assume that they did create such a rule, or interpret the Constitution as if they did.
Wrong on all three counts. Amazing ability you have there.
(a) You are wrong on this one because you inserted the words "non-citizen (immigrant) parents". The founders WANTED immigrants, and the children of naturalized immigrants were accepted as citizens. The issue is ILLEGAL immigrants and transient aliens.
(b) You are wrong on your second point because there is no need to re-interpret their words. A more accurate description would be to identify and expunge all of the incorrectly introduced British influence in American law. (Thanks a lot Rawle.) Beyond that, you still used the words "non-citizen (immigrant) parents". Again, the founders WANTED immigrants. The issue being discussed is ILLEGAL immigrants and transient aliens.
(c) You are wrong on your third point because you attempt to redefine the issue as the founders not anticipating modern inventions. That is an attempt to deflect the real point. The founders were well aware of the desirability of skilled or wealthy immigrants over that of people they didn't want or need, and they debated the topic quite a bit. In terms simple enough for you to understand, the founders understood full well the notion of restricting immigration and citizenship. They just chose not to do so in the early days of the Republic.
I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your "analysis". From past experience I can count on anything written by you to be just so much crap.