The endless arguments and the case law that exists contradict this assertion. One person who belives your assertion is our own Freeper, Lurkinanloomin. He is wrong, of course, and quite confused in his thinking. What he is asserting is really what he believes is ought to be. He has a right to his opinion but he doesn't have a right to demand that his opinion become Constitutional and the law of the land. Only the courts can do that, or a Constitutional Amendment could make all of the arguments moot. The courts have decided without saying so that this is a political question and they intend to stay out of it. Politics is messy and this argument will continue in the messy fashion that we have. Before long, we will have a Presidential candidate who was born of a non citizen mother, with an natural born American father who donated to a sperm bank. Take your pick of where the birth occurred.
You, are the one who is confused.
Lawyers use negatives to drive out ambiguity. NO person ....who shall NOT HAVE attained...
When you clearly state what a person cannot be, you are left with a clear picture of what that person is.
When you craft a statement with positives, you open up the possibilities of questions and “yeah buts”
natural born Citizen.
One who is born a Citizen.
If one is born of two Canada citizen parents, how do you attach German or Polish Citizenship to the child??? You cannot.
If one is born on Canada soil, can that child be a citizen of Paraguay? How?? Who determines?