I've seen this basic summary of the issue before.But which court(s),if nay,have ruled this way or confirmed this position.Not trying to be a wise a$$...I honesty don't know.
“A single US citizen parent cannot obtain “natural born citizenship” for their child. To be a “natural born citizen”, you have to be born within the United States and have two US citizen parents.
I’ve seen this basic summary of the issue before.But which court(s),if nay,have ruled this way or confirmed this position.Not trying to be a wise a$$...I honesty don’t know.”
The clearest statement I’ve found is a statement of fact, within the Supreme Cort case Minor v. Happersett, in 1875.
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
The word “nomenclature”, means the “special terminology” used by tradesmen. So, this is explaining that the term “natural born” should be thought of like a legal term. Just as Ram means “random access memory” to a computer tech, while meaning an animal to a farmer, and something to bash a door in to a soldier, Natural born citizen meant a person born within our nation to two US citizen parents to the framers of our Constitution.
It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Think of all US citizens, regardless of race, as members of a tribe. Only a full blooded member of the tribe can be Chief. Why would we want someone with divided loyalty (a dual or naturalized citizen) or no loyalty (a foreigner) to be the Commander in Chief of our Military?