WRONG. Title 8 says if you were born here, you are a CITIZEN. Not a Natural Born Citizen, and if you are quoting it, then you should know better.
Minor v Happersett decided the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in 1875:
“”The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.”
This unanimous SCOTUS decision has never been overturned, and has been cited to dozens of times over the 138 years since it was handed down.
Title 8 cannot confer Natural Born Citizenship, nor can Congress. Congress has control of Naturalization laws, but cannot affect Natural Born Citizenship, because it is a condition of birth. This child was born in country to two parents who are it’s citizens. This child can have no other possible citizenship.
Its called Jus Soli (Right of soil) AND Jus Sanguinus (Right of Blood)and BOTH are necessary for Natural Born Citizenship.
Anyone who has done any scholarship on this issue, and I have, knows this. I have been publishing on this for some time now.
No you are WRONG. There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Citizenship” outside of what the US Constitution already says about it, i.e. someone born in the US is a citizen - period. It says nothing about any requirement that a person born in the US is not “natural born” if either or both parents are not US citizens at the time of their birth. Title 8 only went as far as clarify citizen status of those born outside of the US to expat parents, of native American tribal members, and of diplomats and their children born outside of the US and those of US citizen service people serving overseas or in US territories.
Minor v Happersett decided the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in 1875:
“”The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.”
This unanimous SCOTUS decision has never been overturned, and has been cited to dozens of times over the 138 years since it was handed down.
Wrong again! Minor v. Happersett was a case involving the rights of women to vote. Virginia Louisa Minor argued that as US citizen, she had the right to vote. It should be mentioned that she was born in the US. The ruling basically said that women did not have the right to vote and upheld Missouri law that denied her that right. I would say the 19th Amendment pretty much made that ruling in full, null and void. It should also be mentioned that Minor v. Happersett mentions the right of only “free white people to vote and that has also been superceeded.
Title 8 cannot confer Natural Born Citizenship, nor can Congress. Congress has control of Naturalization laws, but cannot affect Natural Born Citizenship, because it is a condition of birth. This child was born in country to two parents who are it’s citizens. This child can have no other possible citizenship.
Fine, you think Title 8 has no baring, then go back to the US Constitution and tell me where it explicitly prohibits a person who is born in the US is not a citizen and therefore unqualified to be POTUS. The Constitution doesn’t say that. Its called Jus Soli (Right of soil) AND Jus Sanguinus (Right of Blood)and BOTH are necessary for Natural Born Citizenship.
No sparky, you are wrong yet again; neither Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinus are recognized in the United States and only recognized by a small number of countries. Like or not Birth Right Citizenship is the law of the land. You have a problem with Title 8 but have no problem quoting the laws and legal concepts of other foreign nations such as Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinus – go figure. Perhaps you are also fine with Sharia Law and European Union laws as well?
Anyone who has done any scholarship on this issue, and I have, knows this. I have been publishing on this for some time now.
Color me quitwe unimpressed by your legal scholarship and knowledge or by your web postings (publishing) on the subject.