WKA has answered those arguments. There is no distinction in the law between a natural born citizen, and someone who is a citizen by birth. Nor was there prior to the Constitution.
The meaning of natural born citizen is simply the American form of the already established legal phrase, natural born subject. That is why the WKA decision wrote,
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
Notice they make no distinction between the rule as applying to natural born subjects in the colonies, and natural born citizens post-Constitution, but say, “The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
In Elk, earlier, the court wrote, “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,”
and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (60 U.S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
Since WKA, and also well before it, the court does not accept the idea of 3 classes of citizens - natural born, native born, and naturalized.
Indeed, Minor points this out: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
That applies native and natural born to the same class, and distinguishes it from aliens.
I could give you a dozen or more quotes from the early 1800s showing this, but why? They are cited in WKA.
The legal debate is over. The dissent to WKA makes a reasonable argument, but it remains the DISSENT.
And the Supreme Court is not ducking the issue. They consider it settled law, as it was considered settled law before Obama was born.
In the end, even the hardest core birther has to admit that no court and no state is even willing to consider their case. It is over, folks! Agree or not - and a reasonable person can disagree - the fact remains that it is settled and accepted law.
Frankly, what pisses me off is that birthers won’t admit that the WKA decision, even if it was wrong, was still a rational argument - just as the dissent was. The idea that is has always been settled and accepted law that the child born in the USA of alien parents cannot run for President is simply...STUPID. There are too many court cases and legal writings showing, at a minimum, that a significant number of honest people thought otherwise, and have done so since the Constitution was written.
I don’t mind folks saying they think it is the wrong conclusion, but it is just lunacy to pretend that no one prior to 2008 thought the child of a citizen and a non-citizen could run for President. The idea that I’m an Obamabot because I agree with the reasoning of the NY court in 1844, for example, is just stupid. The idea that Zephaniah Swift, writing about the law in 1795, said ““It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens” because he was an Obamabot is STUPID.
One can try to argue that Swift was wrong, or that James Kent was wrong in writing “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States” back in 1826, but it is stupid to say he was an Obamabot.
saying that any person born within the US is natural born, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, is absurd. if this were true, then the founders would not have not use the phrase ‘natural born’. it would also mean any anchor baby could be president, so long as they were of age and in the US for 14 years.
sen bill S.2128 tried to push this and it didn’t fly.
native born == born within the US
natural born == a native born person born of two US parents
fairly simple and straight forward.
i am native born, having been born of an American father and a british mother, who became a US citizen later. i am not eligible for POTUS due to this.
do i have split alliances? sure. i feel affinity towards scotland, more so then if i had no ties whatsoever. this is exactly what the founders were pushing to avoid. their intent, captured in simple language made convoluted by those attempting to help ‘their team’, was to insure the integrity of the highest office of the land. to insure the person holding the office had the best interests of the US in mind.
i think we can all see the wisdom of their ideals on display over the last 2 1/2 yrs.