[syc1959]

wiggiefool

Just to make it crystal clear;

Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection

ethnic; An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed

common heritage; Common Heritage of Mankind (also termed the common heritage of humanity,common heritage of humankind or common heritage principle) is a principle of international law which holds that defined territorial areas and elements of humanity’s common heritage (cultural and natural) should be held of trust for future generations and be protected from exploitation by individual nation states or corporations.

So how can a foreigner be part of a native/Indigenous people, that are part of a ethnic bond with a common heritage?

[EnderWiggins]

The whole argument boils down to this.

The Framers had two sources in their possession when deciding on the 2nd Article of the US Constitution. One of these was three centuries of English common law (represented by Blackstone), and the other was a book of commentary on law by Emmerich de Vattel.

The question at hand is, which has authority over the meaning of "natural born citizen?" The book that actually has the phrase in it (Blackstone) or the book that does not (de Vattel)?

It's not rocket science. And I should know, because that's what my undergrad degree is in; rocket science.