“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
Also note what it actually says, which is different from your paraphrase:
“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
As much a citizen, not also a citizen. Also, it says the ‘natural born CHILD’ of a citizen, not natural born citizen.
So do you advocate that “anchor babies” are natural born as it pertains to the Presidency?