“It said NOTHING about those born in the USA of non-citizen parents.”
I have read that before.
How is it possible to be so freaking stupid?
Natural born means born of citizen parents. So, if anyone has a question about being born overseas of American citizens, this makes it clear that obviously their offspring would also be natural born American citizens.
You mean you are so stupid to think that the writers would go to all that length to make a separate set-aside for people born overseas, that ONLY people born overseas of citizens are natural born. That is what you are saying.
Again, how can you be so stupid? It is insane.
That is as far as I read of your crap; don’t want to waste my time.
“Natural born means born of citizen parents.”
No it does NOT! You cannot ASSUME what you are trying to show! All that Act did was say babies born to US citizens ABROAD at birth were born citizens! It did not, IN ANY WAY, say “Natural born means born of citizen parents.”
“ONLY people born overseas of citizens are natural born.”
Yes, they were saying if a baby is born to US citizens ABROAD, they are NBC. It doesn’t imply having US citizens as parents was required if born “within the realm” - to use the term all the Founders were familiar with from the well-known meaning of “Natural Born Subject”!
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king....
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established....
In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830) 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York, about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: ‘It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the colonies of North America, while subject to the crown of Great Britain, were natural-born British subjects.’...
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’ 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649