He wasn't and he isn't.
This issue has been beat to death over three years.
I'm still confused about Senate Resolution 511 - A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Was there something wrong with SR-511? If it used the argument of both parents being citizens to confirm him, wouldn't that precedent be useful in getting rid of Zero?
He wasn't and he isn't.
This issue has been beat to death over three years.
I'm still confused about Senate Resolution 511 - A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Was there something wrong with SR-511? If it used the argument of both parents being citizens to confirm him, wouldn't that precedent be useful in getting rid of Zero?
------------------------------------------------
Yes, there was something wrong with SR-511. It went only "part" way. It didn't deal with the born in the sovereign territory part. It "only" (but correctly in part) dealt with the two citizen parent portion.
It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790, when they (SR-511) said this: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
The Naturalization Act of 1790 ((An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization)), in relevant part, reads: And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
The 1790 Act was later repealed by the Act of 1795. Congress, through it's powers of naturalization, does not have the authority (outside being a part of an Amendment process) by themselves to declare who may or may not be a natural born citizen. It's partly why SR-511 is non-binding.
The Act of 1790 attempted to extend NBC status to children born to citizen parentS who were born outside the U.S. (so long as the father was at some time, a resident of the U.S.) The same thing SR-511 attempted to do.
NBC has always been about being born to 2 citizen parents IN the territory of the U.S.
Note: In the 1700's, a father who was temporarily visiting the U.S. on a student visa (if there were such a thing), would NOT have been considered a resident. They would have considered him a sojourner, as he had zero interest or intention in permanently residing in the country.