This clearly indicates that there is a Jus Sanguinis component inherent to the term "Natural Born Citizen". As such, Britain would be able to claim natural born citizenship based on Jus Sanguinis and the United States could make the same claim based on jus Solis. Are we to believe that a person can be a natural born citizen of two different nations?
It's not reasonable. It's not logical. A child born of two non-citizen parents creates the potential for exactly the kind of mischief that the eligibility clause was designed to prevent-foreign influence over our government. They created an electoral college rather than have the legislators pick the POTUS because they knew that foreign countries would spare no expense in influencing the legislators to pick presidents that would not serve the interests of the United States but, rather, foreign powers. It would be an inevitable disaster for this country. For the same reason, they inserted the eligibility clause into our constitution.
Why would they go to this much trouble to keep foreign powers out of our government only to leave this giant glaring loophole for foreign powers to exploit? They wouldn't have and they didn't.
The constitution is, quite simply, being SUBVERTED.
I mean no disrespect to any American citizen. I simply recognize that globalist powers want to own this country, to diminish its sovereignty and to take away our power to control our own destiny and subverting the eligibility clause is one of the ways by which they will accomplish this and I find it very hard to believe that our wise forefathers would have left them the means to do this when it's clear they were trying to prevent exactly this.
That is exactly right. And, with that understanding, they chose to use the term “natural born citizen” when drafting the eligibility clause. The only existing public meaning of the term “natural born subject” or “natural born citizen” at the time of the Philadelphia Convention was the meaning under English common law. There was no existing meaning of the term that required a person born in the United States to have two or even one citizen parent. An originalitist is inescapably led to the conclusion that the meaning of “natural born citizen” is the same as that of “natural born subject” under English law.
This clearly indicates that there is a Jus Sanguinis component inherent to the term "Natural Born Citizen".
It also indicates there was a jus soli component. Under English law, one could be a natural born subject under either jus sanguinis or jus soli principles. One born in England to alien parents was a natural born subject of the British Crown. There is absolutely no contemporary evidence that the Founders intended a different meaning for “natural born citizen.”
As such, Britain would be able to claim natural born citizenship based on Jus Sanguinis and the United States could make the same claim based on jus Solis. Are we to believe that a person can be a natural born citizen of two different nations?
Of course. Why not? And wouldn’t the same issue exist even if the parents were naturalized US citizens? Or are you claiming the child even of naturalized citizens is not a natural born citizen if the parents are still citizens of their birth country under that country’s laws?
It's not reasonable. It's not logical. A child born of two non-citizen parents creates the potential for exactly the kind of mischief that the eligibility clause was designed to prevent-foreign influence over our government. They created an electoral college rather than have the legislators pick the POTUS because they knew that foreign countries would spare no expense in influencing the legislators to pick presidents that would not serve the interests of the United States but, rather, foreign powers. It would be an inevitable disaster for this country. For the same reason, they inserted the eligibility clause into our constitution. Why would they go to this much trouble to keep foreign powers out of our government only to leave this giant glaring loophole for foreign powers to exploit? They wouldn't have and they didn't.
The creation of the electoral college was a compromise made for a number of reasons. The prevention of foreign influence was not chief among them, even if it was any consideration.
The Founders were not as fearful of foreign influence as you suggest. There were proposals made in the Philadelphia Convention to allow only natives to serve as Representatives or Senators, as well as a proposal to impose a 14-year residence requirement on Senators. All these proposals were decisively rejected.
Whatever fear they have would be addressed by the requirement that a President be a citizen from birth and live in the US for the preceding 14 years. Would any reasonable person consider someone born in the US and who lived in the US for the last 14 years to be a foreigner, regardless of the citizenship of his parents?
The constitution is, quite simply, being SUBVERTED. No, it is being applied as written. A subversion would be to add a “two citizen parent” requirement that appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution and has no historical basis.
I mean no disrespect to any American citizen. I simply recognize that globalist powers want to own this country, to diminish its sovereignty and to take away our power to control our own destiny and subverting the eligibility clause is one of the ways by which they will accomplish this and I find it very hard to believe that our wise forefathers would have left them the means to do this when it's clear they were trying to prevent exactly this.
I don’t see how our sovereignty is diminished or our control over own own destiny is threatened by the possibility that we might elect a President who was born in the US and lived here for at least 14 years, but might not have had citizen parents.