“And, by our currently popular standard definition of natural born citizenship, that child would also be a natural born of whatever country s/he was born in, just as anchor babies are said to be natural born citizens of this country.”
That is something we must fight to stop from happening. It goes against our founders original intent.
“And, by our currently popular standard definition of natural born citizenship, that child would also be a natural born of whatever country s/he was born in, just as anchor babies are said to be natural born citizens of this country.”
What it it comes down to, and what the founders intended was declaration of allegiance.
“That is something we must fight to stop from happening. It goes against our founders original intent.”
Exactly. Yours is one of the clearest-headed posts on this thread.
Is “what’s good for the goose, good for the gander”?
Or... is it not — because the Constitution says so?
If our side is as willing to toss out the requirements of the Constitution, just so that our guy (who isn’t any more “qualified” than their guy was) can get in because we like him — what does that do for our argument as desiring to “protect the Constitution”?