And I am not trying to diminish you in any way, I am simply trying to get you to see that US citizenship is based upon the right of expatriation and that no man should have to serve two masters at the same time, loving one and hating the other. Really, look at how our nation is divided now. Hyphenated this and hyphenated that, and all of them putting America second and the nation of their birth first.
Here is what Teddy Roosevelt had to say about hyphenated loyalties, and I remind you, this was well after WKA.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Have you read the Expatriation Act of 1868 that is the sister Act to the 14th Amendment and the statute that governs the oath of citizenship for all naturalized persons to this day and is codified in 8 USC?
1. I am not the one that introduced the ‘Citizenship at Birth’ class. You did by your reference to “Rogers v. Bellei”, and then you argued against your own points.
2. You insult me by insinuating that I don’t know the meaning of my own tag-line. Then you redefine it to explicitly require “the right of expatriation, the right to hold exclusive allegiance towards one nation and one nation only, at birth...”. Natural Born Citizenship implies that right and exclusive allegiance. To require it to be stated is redundant.
3. John Jay’s letter to Washington recommends that the requirement for being POTUS should exclude any foreign influence by requiring exclusive allegiance to the U.S. as indicated in the following excerpt:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
It was after receiving this letter that the term “Natural Born Citizen” was inserted into the Constitution.
4. I have studied and read all of WKA and the quote was from a citation in the Court’s Opinion. Again, you insult me by implying that I am “too lazy to go and actually do a thorough study of the case” as well as “ignorant” because you think I claimed that “WKA introduced a new class of citizenship which I did not.
However, the citation does include this: “Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (that ‘class’ being citizen-at-birth, NOT “Natural Born Citizen”)
5. “Natural Born Citizen” was defined in the works of Vattel’s “Law of Nations...” in 1958, well before the Revolution and well established as an important legal reference in the Colonies and abroad.
6. The Declaration of Independence contains an oblique reference to the full title of Vattel’s book in using the phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. So you see, the Constitution and other Founding documents along with Vattel’s “Law of Nations...” and reasonable logic and common sense is all that is required to determine the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”. No need to resort to laws, Acts, legislation, or amendments as ALL of those are man-made “naturalized citizens”.
7. No Court is likely to grant standing to anyone on this matter, regardless of your reasoning; thus it is up to massive popular demand that the proper meaning as originally intended be always applied to POTUS and electing ONLY members of Congress that will apply that meaning and deny the certification of POTUS to anyone not meeting that definition.