WoW, I sent MSN a howling scared. A couple of hours ago I was amazed to see this headline article on the MSN platform
"The Rise of Neobirtherism". My response was the first and, if I may say so myself, it was a killer response. I will post it below, but before I do, since then the fine people at MSN changed the title of the article and erased all the responses, including mine. Which, by the way, was the only pro-Trumpian response of the lot...that's how good it was. The thrust of the article was that this new birthism (neobirtherism) was just another form of racism. Here is what I wrote. It's far too long, I know, but I was having fun. "There is nothing racial about requiring "natural" citizenship at birth to be of citizen-parents. Most Black Americans are natural-born citizens. Michelle Obama is a natural-born citizen while Barack Obama and Kamala Harris are not. "When the term was first added to the Presidential Qualification clause in Article II, it was to prevent foreigners from obtaining the presidency since the office of the Commander-in-Chief had just been added to the president's official duties. At that time, only the nationality of males determined citizenship. It wasn't until 1922, with the passage of the Cable Act, that the nationality of women entered into the equation of citizenship. After that point, a "natural" citizen at birth required both parents to be U.S. citizens before the birth of their offspring(s) within the jurisdiction. "In this regard, both Barack Obama and Kamala Harris are Section I, Amendment XIV citizens at birth (i.e., Birthright citizens.) by the plenary power of the state, not by natural right. That is to say, naturalized citizens at birth rather than "natural" citizens at birth. If this was not the case, it would mean we are still 'jus soli' subjects (place of birth) to an empirical presidency, rather than 'jus sanguinis' citizens (right of blood) by consent in a constitutional Republic."