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'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.

You are assuming that birthright citizenship (in cases where the parents are not citizens) was simply a mistaken interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Amendment was only intended to provide birthright citizenship (i.e., natural-born citizenship) to individuals covered by "NOTHING but American jurisdiction." But that's not what the Amendment says - as I noted above, the Fourteenth Amendment does not limit birthright citizenship to the children of people "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof," but rather to the children of people "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." If they wanted to say "complete," they would have said "complete."

Also, how do you deal with children (like Obama, for instance) who are the child of citizens of different countries? Under your definition, Obama is clearly not a natural-born citizen of the United States, based on his father's Kenyan/British citizenship. However, it is just as clear, under your definition of natural-born citizenship, that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of Kenya or of Great Britain, based on his mother's American citizenship. As such, under your definition of natural born citizenship, children of citizens of different countries are not natural-born citizens of any country. This is an absurd notion - the idea that a person could be born so easily without a country is, frankly, nonsense, and you would be unlikely to find any legal, Constitutional, or historical support for that proposition.