[highball]

So you believe that by NBC the Framers meant, ‘a child born to two foreign parents, dropped in the US on a short maternity stay & then taken back to be raised by its parents in its true home/place/foreign culture/foreign tradition. You honestly believe that is what the Framers meant?

Did they mean such a thing to be? No. But neither did they specifically prohibit it.

They never considered such a thing was possible, because the technology didn't exist in their day. Travel between continents in mere hours? Crazy talk.

The Founders did not anticipate every possible situation we find ourselves in now. Fortunately, in their wisdom they gave us a way of properly adapting and modifying the Constitution as the need arises. That's what we should be doing, instead of pretending that the Constitution says something it does not.

[DiogenesLamp]

Did they mean such a thing to be? No. But neither did they specifically prohibit it.

It is axiomatically prohibited. The founders would never have believed people so foolish as to need this spelled out so explicitly. Just as they didn't specify what "arms" meant in the second amendment, they didn't feel the need to point out the obvious. Transient Aliens are automatically excluded from consideration.

Even John Bingham, as many times as he discussed the issue in the debates of the 14th amendment, only one time did he feel the need to specifically clarify that the children had to be born of parents having no other allegiances. The rest of the time he just used the short-form version "born here."

This notion is so obvious, that it never occurred to previous lawmakers that subsequent generations would be so stupid as to need this spelled out for them.