“strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
What part of “that issue is a natural-born subject” are you having problems with?
My view of the law is that there are two and only two types of US citizenship, natural born or naturalized. Justice Scalia agrees with this view, and he is a conservative and a Constitutional sholar.
From Scalia’s concurrence in Miller v. Albright:
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
From Scalia’s concurrence in Miller v. Albright:
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
Nice try, so their are two sources of citizenship, at birth or by naturalization, which only answers the citizenship question not the NBC question. Wong Kim Ark did not address or answer the NBC question, and in fact sidestepped it.
A foundling is a citizen at birth if no evidence to the contrary is found by the time the child is 21 years of age, not knowing either parent, does that make the foundling a NBC eligible to be President of the USA? The fact remains this definition needs to be addressed and the controversy resolved. Is Bobby Jidahl as a citizen at birth born to two immigrants an NBC? Do you think Democrats would contest his election to VP or President? Don't we as voters taxpayers, citizens and owners of this nation deserve a clear and concise answer?
The part that says subject, which means you're not citing US law.