Dude, you don't even know what is IN the Constitution. ANYONE who does would NOT say that. Why? because Natural Born Citizen is NOT defined anywhere in the Constitution. Beyond that, if it didn't "exists" then why would the framers state there was? "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President" the framers made a clear distinction.
Why?
Because at the time the constitution was signed, there were hardly any citizens who could qualify as a Natural Born Citizens, including most of the framers themselves. they were citizens, but may not have been born in the colonies, or had parents who were foreigners (like Washington). This would have made it impossible for George Washington to become the first President if it were not included. It is known as the "grandfather clause" - "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,". It wasn't until 1811, 35 years later, that it could be reasonably determined that a 35 year old person was a Natural Born Citizen. Or are you suggesting that we didn't need a Constitutional President until 1811? Clearly the Framers knew there was a specific definition of Natural Born Citizen, and knew that they had to include a Grandfather Clause, because not even George Washington could have qualified as eligible for POTUS otherwise.
"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. "
What the heck is that? Seriously, the constitution doesn't say that anywhere, not even close. The only place Natural Born Citizenship is discussed is in Article 2 Section 1.
"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."
Do you know how many times title 8 has been changed? Now to the LARGER point, Title 8 is written by whom? Which Body?
Congress.
Congress has the power to write laws regarding NATURALIZATION.
It cannot write laws about Natural Born Citizenship.
Why?
Because it cannot be legislated.
Why can't it be Legislated?
Because it is a Condition at birth.
What does that condition at birth have to be?
Born in country to two parents who are its citizens.
How do we know that?
Because it is codified in Supreme Court of the United States Law in Minor V Happersett 1875 88 US 162, 168.
"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."
Ok, I am deliberately being very patient here because I have explained this so many times, to so many different people.
What was it that made it impossible for Virgina Minor to make use of the 14th Amendment - her mechanism of choice to demand redress in SCOTUS to begin with?
It was the reason she lost the case before the court even had to address the fact she was a woman. She could not use the 14th Amendment, because she had zero claim to use it.
She was a Natural Born Citizen, born to two parents who were citizens in the Country. No Natural Born Citizen can use the 14th Amendment on citizenship issues, because they have no legal ability to, the 14th Amendment with regard to citizenship, does not apply to Natural Born Citizens. Why would it? How could it? A Natural Born Citizen doesn't need it, and congress cannot legislate Natural Born Citizenship, so the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Natural Born Citizens, they don't need it in any way shape or form in order to determine the fact that those people are citizens. This is why the Minor case was decided as it was.
The definition of Natural Born Citizen as written in Minor was this:
"“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."
It's called an Independent Ground. What is an independent Ground you ask? It is a piece of information used in reaching a decision. Here is a recent case which shows that this term is known in legal terms, and used in legal cases, http://openjurist.org/519/us/79/ogilvie-v-united-states Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996)
“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”
The Independent Ground in Minor is not a part of the Dictum. It is part of the Holding in the case, it is the reason Minor was decided as it was. It is why Virgina Minor lost her case. Not because she was a woman, the court did not discuss that as a reason to deny her, they didn't want to touch that political hot potato. No, they used the fact she was a Natural Born Citizen, and then they defined it clearly to show how the description of her birth and her citizenship status is what prevented her from using the 14th Amendment.
"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."
This is correct Title 8 has no bearing. Look it up yourself. Congress can write laws on citizenship only as it applies to NATURALIZATION. That is a simple fact. Its Article 1 Section 8, and it states: "The Congress shall have Power To... [sic] establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." Title 8 is what Congress has written. Title 8 does not and cannot affect or effect Natural Born Citizenship, because this citizenship does not fall into the category of Naturalization. If there is anything that most people can agree on, it is this, there is only two forms of Citizenship. Natural Born Citizenship, and Naturalized Citizenship. That's it. If you are not a Natural Born Citizen, then your citizenship can be affected by Congress, who can write Naturalization law. That includes the 14th Amendment, Title 8 or any other law congress has written and passed. The only way that congress could effect Natural Born Citizenship would be to write and then pass a Constitutional Amendment and get 2/3rds of the states to also pass it saying that it can. That's it.
"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."
My whole argument above proves in debate fashion, that the United States recognizes Jus Sanguinus and Jus Soli. it is codified in Minor V. Happersett which has never been overturned, and is still the law of the land, and it is also very clearly delineated in Article 2 Section 1 by the writers of the constitution itself.
"Like or not Birth Right Citizenship is the law of the land."
Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. You are correct! The 14th Amendment is currently interpreted to mean that being born here gives you citizenship. It surely does! Unfortunately for your argument, citizenship is not the same as Natural Born Citizenship.
"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? "
I really am uninterested in what your opinion of me is. Frankly it's none of my business. More to the point it isn't relevant what your opinion is. I can say this however, I at least have the guts and self confidence to publish on it. You can't deny that.
I have done the research, I know what I am talking about, and so far am winning this debate on points. I am not going to apologize for it. I don't need to. Facts are facts, and I have presented facts. You can disagree till the cows come home. That does not mean you are correct. I know I am correct, I have done the research that proves it.
It's nothing personal. You are by no means alone in not knowing what these things are or mean. It is why we find ourselves here to begin with. It is why I am being patient and not rising to your thinly veiled insults. This is a VERY important discussion and I am not going to belittle it with personal attacks, thinly veiled or not.