Replies

At best, Sect 301 of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act RE-defines the status a CITIZEN (NOT a Natural Born Citizen) as: 1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; or 2) "a person born OUTSIDE the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person..."

So, going by the ABOVE #1 definition, if ANY baby is born on US soil ("and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), he/she can be president ... and yes, I know this is the Statute you wish to invoke to apply to the Constitutional requirements of President.

... this is HIGHLY dubious and debatable -- go spend some time looking at this thread, as well as various Congressional Committee minutes for the last decade and you'll see what I mean ...

Committee on the Judiciary

Committee on International Relations

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

"At best, Sect 301 of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act RE-defines the status a CITIZEN (NOT a Natural Born Citizen) as"

You are trying again to create a imaginary third class 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen' again. More accurately, you are trying to base an argument on the existence of this entirely mythical class. It doesn't exist. No argument on this basis will be valid until you prove the existence of this class.

"So, going by the ABOVE #1 definition, if ANY baby is born on US soil ("and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), he/she can be president ... "

Yes.

"this is HIGHLY dubious and debatable -- go spend some time looking at this thread, as well as various Congressional Committee minutes for the last decade and you'll see what I mean""

Well, at least we've made it from 'not' to 'dubious.' I'm not going to go off and research hundreds of documents (On this site, and and this one but not here (bad link?) on the basis of your assertion that there might be something there to support your claims. You find something specific to respond with. I have supported my claims, you support yours. Also, I have read every single post on this thread, at least thoroughly enough to determine if somebody was just spamming the thread, and I have addressed every claim put forth that opposed my position at least once.