[rxsid]

"Under the 14th amendment he would be a citizen, same as Wong Kim Ark, but not a natural born on. The 14th amendment does not contain the words "Natural born citizen" or even "natural born". Thus it did not redefine the term as originally understood. Which of course was "born in the country of parents who are it's citizens". "

Right. We know the architects of the 14th Amendment knew exactly what the framers meant when they put the NBC requirement into the Constitution:

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

So every anchor baby also owes allegiance to Mexico, Iran, Korean, so according to this should NOT be an American citizen?

Do I understand this right?

Cuz I personally know over 100 anchor babies who laugh at how stupid we are and how easy it is to bring 25 relatives to the USA (from my charity work in LA if you must know) ............

[jamese777]

Right. We know the architects of the 14th Amendment knew exactly what the framers meant when they put the NBC requirement into the Constitution:

Vattel’s definition for “natural born citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, “father” of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

---

However in MANDOLI V. ACHESON, 344 U. S. 133 (1952), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that:
“We find no warrant in the statutes for concluding that petitioner has suffered expatriation. And, since Congress has prescribed a law for this situation, we think the dignity of citizenship which the Constitution confers as a birthright upon every person born within its protection is not to be withdrawn or extinguished by the courts except pursuant to a clear statutory mandate. [Footnote 12] The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed, with directions to remand the case to the District Court for the entry of an order declaring that the petitioner is a citizen of the United States.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/344/133/case.html

Where is the “clear statuatory mandate” that defines a natural born citizen as a person having two parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty?” There is no such statute.
In fact, the current statute that defines “Nationals and Citizens-at-birth” clearly states that a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen-at-birth.
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1401.html