“They did want to make it clear that if you were traveling or stationed abroad, your children would still be US “natural born citizens”.”
True, natural born citizens, but only if they were born of citizen parents, which you refuse to acknowledge. Why would they specify, of citizen parents? They already discussed aliens becoming citizens. They did not mention aliens becoming natural born citizens. The children of naturalized citizens would indeed be natural born citizens. Did you, by the way, just happened to slip across the border?
Let me ask you a question. Why is it that, long before this was ever a controversy, people were taught that natural born meant born of citizen parents. I was taught that in American history when I had American history in the 11th grade. Later on, in the 70s, when I went to college, I remember the old professor explaining what a natural born citizen was. He had a doctorate in history. My mother’s geneneration was taught that, she told me, and her mother’s also. Why did all these millions of people and all these highly educated people have it so wrong for so long.?
True, natural born citizens, but only if they were born of citizen parents, which you refuse to acknowledge.
What? You quoted me specifically acknowledging that.
Why would they specify, of citizen parents? They already discussed aliens becoming citizens. They did not mention aliens becoming natural born citizens. The children of naturalized citizens would indeed be natural born citizens.
You keep confusing what that congress actually did do, and what you wish they had done. In fairness, they addressed two separate questions in the same bill, to wit:
1. How does a non-citizen become a citizen, and what is the status of that persons already living issue and;
2. What is the citizenship status of the child of a US citizen born outside of the United States.
They simply didn't address the question of the citizenship status of a person born on US soil, probably because they didn't think it needed to be clarified. You wish they had. I wish they had. But they didn't.
Did you, by the way, just happened to slip across the border?
Don't get snarky. You don't even know my opionion on the matter, you're just getting nasty because I'm pointing out that you're making a weak argument, and I would like to you to make a strong one. And sloppy, emotional insults like that further undermine your case. But no, I did not.
Let me ask you a question.
Looks like you have two:
Why is it that, long before this was ever a controversy, people were taught that natural born meant born of citizen parents. I was taught that in American history when I had American history in the 11th grade. Later on, in the 70s, when I went to college, I remember the old professor explaining what a natural born citizen was. He had a doctorate in history. My mother’s geneneration was taught that, she told me, and her mother’s also.
You have not established that this was the case. I was in high school in the 70's, and I don't recall that being part of the curriculum. Perhaps it changed in the intervening decade. But this conversation started with you, rightly, searching for an historical source that supported the claim that to be "natural born", a person had to have two citizen parents at the time of his birth. One's decades-old recollections from high school civics, or the oral tradition passed along by your mother, are a slimmer reed than one might want to support such a bold claim. People are simply going to demand something a little more solid.
Why did all these millions of people and all these highly educated people have it so wrong for so long.?
The problem with your second question is that you're "begging the question". You're assuming your conclusion as a part of your argument. Which is always the problem with this evergreen "NBC" debate. People have strong feelings about the matter, and seem to think that emotional intensity should win the day. Well, sometimes it does, but it's usually not pretty, and often leads to unintended and undesireable consequences.
Your beef is not with me, however. I would agree that both birthright citizenship and the expansive definition of a "natural born citizen" have proved to be problematic, and we would be better off if things could somehow be moved to align more with the position you seem to be taking.
But it's like the 19th amendment: a complete disaster, but without any way to rectify the situation within the current political system.