[Triple]

Really?? - I quoted you accurately, and what you wrote has important differences.

I’m sorry for you that you can’t see the differences.

Out.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Really?? - I quoted you accurately, and what you wrote has important differences. I’m sorry for you that you can’t see the differences.

Tex: There is one path to natural-born citizenship that mostly definitely is settled law: those born in the country to citizen parents. All other paths have unresolved doubts and are absolutely up for debate until the SCOTUS makes a ruling.

Triple: Wrong - There is one class of citizenship that is unquestioned, NBC (those born in country to two citizen parents). Other classes of citizenship may be challenged. in M Vs H the woman in question was NBC, therefore her citizenship was unquestioned.

We both agree that those born in the country to citizen parents are natural-born citizens and that there can be no legal arguments to the contrary, do we not?

We both agree that for all others who claim natural-born citizenship, legal arguments can be made to the contrary, do we not?

I structured my statement to reflect the fact that those who are deemed citizens at birth or natural-born citizens by statute (and are not naturalized) may not be NBC for Constitutional purposes. The SCOTUS has not ruled on that path to natural-born citizenship. There may be only one path to a Constitutional NBC. Until the SCOTUS rules on the Constitutional status of statutory natural-born citizens, their path to NBC is unsettled law.