[B Knotts]

You and I can certainly give our opinions as to what it means, or ought to mean, but they’re not worth a whole lot.

You might not like that, but it’s the truth.

I think the idea that it requires being born on U.S. soil makes some sense, but I don’t know if I buy the idea that parents must *both* be citizens. I think that being born on U.S. soil, legally, is enough. I don’t see any evidence that would indicate otherwise.

As for Ted Cruz, no, he would not qualify under that scenario. But, like I said, until the courts rule, we really don’t know what the actual interpretation will be.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I don’t see any evidence that would indicate otherwise.

Look harder.

We're not talking about mere citizenship here. This requirement is specified only for the presidency.

[jpsb]

"I think the idea that it requires being born on U.S. soil"

One citizenship is derived from one parents not ones place of birth. At least that is my view, and my argument for my children of illegals are not natural born citizens. And for why children born abroad of two US citizens in the service of our country or simply temporally away are natural born citizens.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I don’t know if I buy the idea that parents must *both* be citizens.

Here it is: (emphasis added)

>>It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parentS within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.<<