“...the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement;..”
Not true.
Natural born citizenship is based on natural law: it needs no legal statute to define it. I was born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents - there is no question I am a natural born citizen of the U.S.
There exist legal statutes for children born in Panama to U.S. citizens.
There exist legal statutes for children born in the U.S. or in a foreign nation, to parents one of whom is a foreign national and the other a U.S. citizen.
Neither John Sydney McCain nor Barack Hussein Obama II are natural born citizens.
“Natural born citizenship is based on natural law”
Our, “NBC” is based on Constitution, which “language” in turn is based on understanding of founders, which in turn is to be found in English common law.
You can make your argument, but it probably ain’t going nowhere. Courts are pretty well decided about this.
parsy
Boring census records. Well, instead of putting me to sleep it revealed some rather interesting statistics.
The births were classified according to the nationality of the parent and were broken down into 3 categories:
Native...Foreign...Mixed/One Parent Foreign
The records are from 1849-1863
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&pg=PT361&id=LvGPEgEu7ysC#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1910 & 1920 census records also break down the births according to the nationality of the parents.
Now, if the definition of citizen at birth actually was born=native=natural born then there would be only 2 categories of native & foreign.
The earlier records are classified by households & the household was either native or foreign/alien so I guess we can put to rest the drones ignorance in believing that the framers adopted some feudal definition of citizen.