What about anchor babies?
I mean, if we are going to allow one US citizen parent = natural born then why stop there? Really. Let the people be the judge as you stated. Why not just say, born on US soil = natural born?
I know what you are saying about the SCOTUS, legal system, etc.. and yes, it seems they are on your side on this issue.
I am not saying I agree with it, and I believe they need to address this issue once and for all, but I concede your point.
Does inaction on behalf of these authorities make it law? Do you personally believe this issue needs to be resolved?
Born on US soil = natural born is the present definition of natural born citizen. And when it comes Presidential eligibility I have no problem with it.
The anchor baby problem is a different issue because it is linked to illegal immigration. For that reason alone I would support a Constitutional amendment to prevent the children of people in the country illegally from becoming citizens. It would reduce illegal immigration and save us billions in tax dollars.
“What about anchor babies?”
According to the WKA decision, the parents need to be in the USA legally:
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”
“In amity” means in friendship with the government. The 14th used the phrase: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”. It meant the same thing.
It would be interesting to see a birther try a court case arguing that Obama Sr was either not here in amity (I believe he was deported or encouraged by the US government to leave) or that he was here temporarily at the bidding of a foreign government, and thus did not fall under the WKA ruling:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”