The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Go ahead and try and disprove the above statement. You can't.
Never.
Go ahead and disprove the above statement.....
:-)
Another quote for you to disprove:
"Not one significant authority in the entirety of United States history, conservative, liberal or otherwise, has EVER interpreted the Constitution the way that birthers do. Not one single significant legal or historical authority has EVER given "natural born citizen" the meaning they give it. Not one single bona-fine published textbook in American history has EVER said that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. There's no real legal or historical argument here at all. Not among the people who deal professionally with either history or law. The ONLY people making this claim are a bunch of people on the internet who have little understanding of either history or law, but insist that they do."
For your consideration:
From the U.S. government’s brief in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):
“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?” If so, then verily there has been a most degenerative departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”
http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/AppellantsBrief.pdf
The Government (Appellant) Brief: US v Wong Kim Ark (page 18 of 20 of the pdf) Page 34 of the original
and
…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen…
“And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….
The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”
Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the Brooklyn section of New York City in 1907 to two Swedish parents who had arrived in the United States some time prior to 1906; her father was naturalized in 1906. In 1911, her mother took the four-year-old to Sweden; her father went to Sweden in 1922, and in 1934 made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had “voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.”
In 1929, within eight months of attaining the age of majority, Marie Elg obtained an American passport through the American consul in Sweden, and returned to the United States. In 1935 she was notified by the U.S. Department of Labor that she was an illegal alien and was threatened with deportation.
Elg sued to establish that she was a citizen of the United States and not subject to deportation. Frances Perkins was listed as the nominal plaintiff in the case, being the Secretary of Labor during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
There’s just a few reference materials that cover it. Also, may I add
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:
“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”
No parental requirement there
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
Nope, no parental requirement there either
Check out the book list I gave you, there’s plenty of other examples.