Big whoop. You might as well reference the antecedent to his ‘therefore’, which is simply that those who are citizens of the individual states in the United States are also citizens of the United States.
He’s really no expert or even acknowledging of the concept of natural born citizen as otherwise documented and understood at the time.
IMO your argument has de facto won since Obama took office and the stricter definition is never going to be enforced. But I’m in no way convinced that that’s what the framers meant and it is disingenuous to simply pretend that the stricter definition didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was written.
Also, I am probably closer to being a Cruz Republican than any other type of Republican I can name by an individual.
Well, it's refreshing to hear you at least admit that "your argument has de facto won."
However, if you had done enough reading, you would understand that "my" argument isn't my argument because I picked an argument I liked. I chose "my" argument because it was the only one backed by both history and law. If you had done enough reading of early sources and the law, you would understand that's the case.
It occurred to me yesterday that what people such as Jeff Winston advocate is the most LIBERAL possible interpretation of the meaning, while what people such as myself advocate the most CONSERVATIVE possible interpretation of the meaning.
Jeff's standard allows anchor babies, birth tourism, fails to explain why Indians and Slaves were barred from citizenship, and also fails to explain the Children of British loyalists after the Revolutionary war. (that they were British, not American. In those days you didn't get to chose your allegiance. )
The Conservative Standard contains none of those paradoxes.