An anchor baby is currently determined to be a "citizen by birth." Right?
Now, how did that anchor baby get it's "citizenship?"
By way of a federal law.
In other words, it takes something "unnatural" (no pun intended), as in a law, in order to "give" citizenship to that person.
The whole point of the term "Natural Born Citizen" is to emphasis that the citizenship did NOT arise by way of a law or statue. Therefore, while an anchor baby may indeed be a "citizen" by virtue of being born on U.S. soil, they could not be considered a "Natural Born Citizen", at least in the way the term was described during the time of the writing and ratifying of the Constitution. Again, otherwise the framers would have been intent to adopt Hamilton's suggested requirement.
“The whole point of the term “Natural Born Citizen” is to emphasis that the citizenship did NOT arise by way of a law or statue. Therefore, while an anchor baby may indeed be a “citizen” by virtue of being born on U.S. soil, they could not be considered a “Natural Born Citizen”, at least in the way the term was described during the time of the writing and ratifying of the Constitution. Again, otherwise the framers would have been intent to adopt Hamilton’s suggested requirement.”
+++++++++++++++
And as I’m seeing more and more clearly [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2040753/posts] the applicable statutes don’t even grant BO ‘citizenship at birth’, let alone NBC. As David opines below, he very well may not be a citizen, as the fraud perpetrated was that he was born in HI, so why would he have naturalized?
From there, we get a non-US citizen as POTUS, if it can be proven that he was born in Kenya.
Wow. I’ve inherently known all of this, or tended to believe it based on zero’s obfuscation, but seeing it laid out is just incredibly damning.