[T.B. Yoits]

Harris was born in California, making her a citizen.

The same would be then be true of children of diplomats and their staff, but it's not.

Being an anchor baby doesn't make one a Natural Born Citizen.

[Erik Latranyi]

The same would be then be true of children of diplomats and their staff, but it's not. Being an anchor baby doesn't make one a Natural Born Citizen.

This is not the hill to die on.

Voters do not care. They care about inflation, migration and energy prices.

This is a distraction that we do not need.

[chuckb87]

“Being an anchor baby doesn’t make one a Natural Born Citizen”

You’re quite discriminating yet incredibly wrong.

[woodpusher]

Being an anchor baby doesn't make one a Natural Born Citizen.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 658-59:

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, 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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63 (1898)

In United States 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."