Replies

I’ll ask again - based on this interpretation of the 14th amendment, is Obama even a citizen (assuming he was born in Hawaii)?

My point, once again, remains the same: the writers you quote speak only to the definition of “citizens” as opposed to “non-citizen.” They do not, as you have presented them, draw any distinction between “natural-born citizen” and “citizen by birth, but not natural born.” To them, the latter category simply did not exist.

Considering that the latter category does exist under the 14th Amendment (as it is currently interpreted) - that is, considering that individuals born in the United States to non-citizen parents - please explain how these writers/writings support any distinction between natural-born citizens and citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens.

Quite frankly, you are using these writers to attempt to prove a point (that there can be citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens) that the writers themselves would consider absurd.

I’ll ask again - based on this interpretation of the 14th amendment, is Obama even a citizen (assuming he was born in Hawaii)? My point, once again, remains the same: the writers you quote speak only to the definition of “citizens” as opposed to “non-citizen.” They do not, as you have presented them, draw any distinction between “natural-born citizen” and “citizen by birth, but not natural born.” To them, the latter category simply did not exist. Considering that the latter category does exist under the 14th Amendment (as it is currently interpreted) - that is, considering that individuals born in the United States to non-citizen parents - please explain how these writers/writings support any distinction between natural-born citizens and citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens. Quite frankly, you are using these writers to attempt to prove a point (that there can be citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens) that the writers themselves would consider absurd. I'm not sure I understand you... But your notion of a citizen by birth - but whose parents were not citizens... Doesn't exist. They are citizens by legislation, court order and by the decision of their parents. A mother with an "anchor baby" is an interesting connundrum. She could leave once the baby is born, take the baby back to some other country, and that baby would be a citizen there. My children, for instance, do not need any decision on my part, any judge, legislated law, court ruling, nor any other act to be citizens - AND - this is the relevant part - nobody can make them citizens of another country. In other words, there is NOTHING but American jurisdiction covering them. However, if mother decides to stay here, the baby becomes a citizen, and this is by an action and exercising a law that can be altered by Congress. The "born citizen from non citizen parents" is a legal fiction, but we can make that person a citizen, just not a natural born one, by law or that person can be a citizen of another country by choice of the parent. In other words, there is another power who has authority over their citizenship. This anchor baby problem is due to improper law and interpretation of the Constitution. That mistake does not invalidate the rest of the Constitution.

Again, let me be clear...

You said: “Quite frankly, you are using these writers to attempt to prove a point (that there can be citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens) that the writers themselves would consider absurd.”

No, the current operative interpretation of the 14th Amendment is is absurd, not the point being made about the meaning of “natural born”.