What I did was READ the WKA decision. It was the court who said the meaning of NBC is found in English Common Law, and that in English Common Law, a child of TWO alien parents was a natural born subject.
NBC wasn’t a term made up in the Constitution. It existed as a legal phrase, with a well known legal meaning BEFORE the Constitution was written. WKA reviewed that legal history at length.
The Founders used a legal term with a specific meaning. That meaning did NOT require two citizen parents.
like I said you are arguing for an absurd result. FYI WKA was decided before the first immigration law in the US, at that time there were no illegal aliens. The decision did not address them because there were none. Any subsequent decisions should include consideration of how the interpretation would affect illegal immigration. Take a look at Plyler v Doe and see that that decision is ripe for being overturned due to 1) the 1986 IRCA act and the detrimental effect of massive illegal immigration and its costs.
Do you think for one minute the SCOTUS would declare its okay for a child of two illegal aliens to become President of the US and is in fact a NBC for that purpose? That would reward lawbreaking, an unjust and absurd result. Don’t try to argue Obama had one USC parent and one student because that could not be broken out of the NBC as you represent it. You say anyone born here of any parentage short of a diplomat is an NBC for Presidential eligibility. You are a sick puppy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_legislation