This really isn't just your interpretation. It's pretty much the understanding of almost everybody. Everybody Who's Ignorant, Lying or stupid. Yup, that pretty much catches all the people who agree with you.
Why did we pass the 14th amendment Jeff? Why Jeff? Why did we NEED the 14th Amendment Jeff?
Tell us Jeff! We all want to hear your explanation why we created a Constitutional AMENDMENT which says the exact same thing as existing law. (According to You.)
Why didn't it apply to Indians Jeff? Why Jeff? Tell Us all why the 14th amendment didn't change existing law, but somehow didn't affect Indians who were born here.
Why do you want to exempt "Anchor Babies" Jeff? They meet your criteria, but you don't want to count them. Are you a Hypocrite Jeff? You need to eat your "anchor baby" soup Jeff. You ordered it, now you need to drink up every last bit of your Anchor baby soup Jeff!
Why do you want to exclude Anchor babies Jeff? Why Jeff?
Lucy! You got some splainin to do!
Well those are some good questions but you know he’ll just post a WALL OF TEXT and then twist it to whatever he want’s it to be.
Baffle them with bulls####. Overwhelm them with nonsensical arguments and KNOW that enough of the SHALLOW non-thinkers will fall for it.
Axelrod would be proud.
Tell us Jeff! We all want to hear your explanation why we created a Constitutional AMENDMENT which says the exact same thing as existing law. (According to You.)I'll give you the same reasons the sponsors of the 14th Amendment gave. They saw American-born black people being denied the status and rights of citizenship, even though they understood that such people were citizens. So they passed a law to make it absolutely clear that black Americans were US citizens, and had rights too.
Why didn't it apply to Indians Jeff? Why Jeff? Tell Us all why the 14th amendment didn't change existing law, but somehow didn't affect Indians who were born here.
Again, something we've been over many, many times. Because Indians in tribes were not in American society. They were members of separate nations with their own governments, and our laws did not apply to them except to the extent that they interacted with our society.
If two Indians left their tribes and their tribal government and moved to Pittsburg and had a baby there, that baby was a natural born citizen.
Why do you want to exempt "Anchor Babies" Jeff? They meet your criteria, but you don't want to count them. Are you a Hypocrite Jeff? You need to eat your "anchor baby" soup Jeff. You ordered it, now you need to drink up every last bit of your Anchor baby soup Jeff!
Since it took much more time, expense and danger to travel internationally than it does now, anchor babies were not contemplated in the historical context that gave rise to the phrase "natural born citizen." I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for excluding them from citizenship.
Now I've explained some things. How about you explain something.
The vast majority of our early legal authorities all go one way when it comes to the meaning of natural born citizenship.
Why do you adamantly ignore or brush off all of our best early legal experts, to instead push the claims of folks like David Ramsay (who was directly contradicted 36 to 1 by James Madison, other Framers, and our first House) and Samuel Roberts (who cited no authority and had very little of his own)?
We all want to hear your explanation why we created a Constitutional AMENDMENT which says the exact same thing as existing law. (According to You.) Also apparently according to Senator Jacob Howard, who, when he introduced the amendment to the Senate, said "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already."