The constitution states, In essence, that in order to be president, a person must be a ‘birth born citizen’ (citizen of the US)- or to have ‘birthright citizenship’ - Down through the ages, birthright citizenship has been afforded to those born just soli, and just sanguinis, and subsequent cases such a Nguyen case indicate that there is no difference between a citizen mother who has a child off soil or on soil- no difference- law 1401 g) does not carry a qualifier that states a citizen mother who has a child off soil has the same status AFTER a process takes place, it indicates that her child ‘has’ citizenship ‘at birth’- pointing to an exception to the rule (1409) and implying that this makes the law of 1401 an act of naturalization simply isn’t correct- The opinion of the Nguyen case was that there is no difference in status of a child born off soil or on soil to a citizen mother, and that as a result of that case, it can now be argue that at birth and by birth are not acts of naturalization that go along with current federal law at 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(23).165
Unlearner was correct in citing the act of 1790 which used the term natural born- those who make the claim that because the 1795 act removed the words it meant that the original founders didn’t intend the phrase to be used, are missing the fact that all it did, removing the term, was to make the issue of NBC vague again- it did not remove the possibility that a child born to a citizen abroad would be considered NBC
There are two sides in this issue- those who think any act of congress/statute, makes someone ineligible, and those that, like Justice Breyer, and others who state that a statute does not automatically confer a naturalization process, and that congress holds the power to describe those who need naturalization and those who don’t
The fact that this issue has gone back and forth down through the ages, and hasn’t been decided in over 200 years shows that this is anything but settled-
The constitution never states that the only possibility for serving as president is that a person ‘must be born In the united states, and only in the united states, to two citizen born parents’- a very easy term to add to the constitution IF the founders had intended that criteria to be the only deciding factor- and a phrase that would have saved legal scholars 200 years worth of arguments back and forth
While passion for a position may run high on both sides of the isle- it’s a little, nay, a lot petty for any side to maliciously accuse the other of lies and deceit while one side argues their points- when a simple ‘sorry, but I don’t find that to be the case, and here’s why’ would be far more conducive to hashing out problems with an opponent’s points-
I had hoped you could rise above that Cdbolt, but apparently you can’t- I am not a legal scholar, I can only cite what legal scholars say on the issue and either agree or disagree and give the reasons why I agree or not- right or wrong- I do not claim to be right. only to make a case which seems reasonable and right to me given the information I have at present- You disagree, and that’s fine- but it does no one any good for you to get all huffy and falsely accuse those you are arguing with of things they are not guilty of- It’s just too bad you couldn’t rise above the petty insults- which I ignored for many how many weeks now? Too many really-
sorry, that should read ‘born citizen’ or ‘citizen at birth’ not ‘birth born citizen’