[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"Whatever, man. You're too slippery for me. "

Not for me. I notice that the Jus Soli pontificators on this thread have all managed to conveniently avoid the simple logic exercise that points quite clearly to what the intent of the founders was in requiring that POTUS/VPOTUS, and only POTUS/VPOTUS be a Natural Born Citizen:

The Framers wanted to ensure to the greatest degree possible that any aspirant to the presidency would have loyalty to, and only to the US. Ergo, citizenship derived by birth in the US to parentS who are themselves citizens. Anything else opens the door to the potential for divided loyalties.

By the "reasoning" of some here, a child born to illegal alien parents but on US soil has better legal NBC status than one born to US servicemember parents on a military base overseas.

Flies in the face of logic.

Thanks for the Pings, melancholy and LucyT.

[Mr Rogers]

The child of an illegal is arguably one of the few exceptions. To qualify as a natural born subject, the parents had to be present “in amity” with the King. The children of an invading army, for example, were NOT natural born subjects. Thus, they would also not qualify as natural born citizens.

The Founders COULD have written “born of citizen parents”, or even followed Vattel and written “native”. They did not. They used a term with a recognized legal meaning. It was ratified by state legislatures that themselves used the term interchangeably with natural born subject.

There is no legal dispute.

Remember the NBC clause was an afterthought. It was not in the original draft. Originally, the President could have been a naturalized citizen. Time of residency was added for Congressional offices, and the President was then required to be citizen from birth.

[DiogenesLamp]

By the "reasoning" of some here, a child born to illegal alien parents but on US soil has better legal NBC status than one born to US servicemember parents on a military base overseas.

Flies in the face of logic.

And this is the salient point. The Jus Soli interpretation is just plain stupid. It yields ridiculous results, and requires a series of exceptions*, therefore it is wrong.

.

.

* Indians were an exception. Slaves were an exception. Children of Diplomats were an exception. British Loyalists after The War of Independence were an exception. None of these are exceptions according to Jus Sanguinus.