They would all be WRONG!!!
Look, if all you needed was to be born on U.S. soil, then there would be no need for the specific term “NATURAL BORN” citizen. Were they just trying to fill up space in the constitution? There is no doubt, in the “original intent”, of the framers. The John Jay letter, the changing of the language to incorporate NBC into Article II. And for the “case law” people, there is; Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875). “
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.”
Citizen parents matter. It’s a discussion that needs to be held and confronted with Foggers, Faithers and Obama’s Excuse Makers. The question they can’t explain away is why the Minor court rejected Virginia Minor’s 14th amendment citizenship argument and why they said ANYTHING about citizen parents. Further, why does Wong Kim Ark also talk about citizen parents when it gave the holding in Minor?? There’s an obvious answer, but the Obama apologists don’t want to admit what that answer is. Citizen parents matter and they were used to exclusively define natural-born citizenship per Article II of the Constitution. What other reason would there be for saying anything about citizen parents??