Not to mention many of us who attended school in the 60's and 70's were taught this definition in history and government class -
Natural born citizenship is hereditary...you get it from your parents because you inherent their Allegiance.
(sigh)
Those who say the parents don’t matter are always, always defending Obama. [At least Cruz’ father wanted to become a citizen and loves the USA passionately and profoundly. Obama’s father hated and detested the USA, and passed it along to the son who wrote a paean to his father under the guise of a memoir.] Obama is the living, breathing embodiment of what the Framers feared. Obama hates the USA & most of its citizens. His ‘fundamental transformation’ is in fact destruction—and it’s so far along it may not be reversible.
As I pointed out to one of our more moonbatty Obots, Obama never misses a chance to favor terrorists and illegals over US citizens. Obama doesn’t care how many of our military men and women die due to his emptying of Gitmo; he is just favoring the group he identifies with over the group he hates. Same with illegals. He feels it is their right to rob, assault, injure, rape and murder US citizens, & he’s come right out and said that US citizens have no right to deny illegals residency and an outsized share of the benefits US citizens paid for. Obama is fundamentally sick, but it is the US that pays the price.
& all the while, our Obots cheer him on. He’s not the only one who’s sick.
So is the family name. People can become a member of a family through adoption (which is analogous to naturalization in a country) but if you would believe the arguments of these Obot trolls, you would only need to be born in someone else's house to be a member of their family.
People can recognize this idea as nonsense when you apply it to a family, but they don't see the silliness of it when you apply it to a nation.
Newly acquired citizenship should be contingent upon the deliberate acquiescence of the adopting nation. No foreigner should be able to decide to "give" American citizenship to their children. It is not their's to give.
We went far afield back in the early days of the 19th century, and I for one blame Rawle and others for deliberately muddying the waters.