Can the lawyer-speak. You still didn't answer the question.
Jeff, you're a transparent fraud. You absolutely refuse to answer the one simple question that lies at the heart of this entire discussion. The one thing that no amount of copy/pasta and lawyer-like dancing can overcome.
As I predicted, you've invested far too much in the defense of your position to allow yourself to be cornered into a place you can't escape from, so you've chosen the coward's way out.
By doing so, you've now proven that your whole argument rests on thin air, and is ultimately indefensible because simple logic and reason do not support it.
I'm done with you, Jeff. You're obviously obsessed with being right in an internet argument, and really have no other purpose for continuing this exchange.
Finis
Your post said it all, and said it very well, w one exception. Namely, what is at the bottom of this guy’s obsession on the subject? He goes from thread to thread, making the liberal case for Obama, and posts ad nauseum the same garbage over and over and over. It’s beyond zeal, passion or even compulsion. It’s weirder than that. I’ve seen known liberals less obsessed w defending Obama’s legitimacy. There is something a bit psychologically off here. Creepy, is the only word I can think of. Just plain creepy.
You want me to agree that we should adopt a Presidential qualification that allows for not the faintest scintilla of "foreign influence" upon anyone who might be elected President. You want me to agree that only those who are locked in some kind of cocoon that excludes any possible "foreign influence" should be allowed to be President.
But I don't agree with you, because it is absolutely clear that the Founding Fathers and Framers did not agree with you.
If they had, they would NEVER have only required only 14 years residence in the United States for Presidential candidates.
If they had, they would NEVER have said "natural born citizen" in the first place, because that term NEVER implied citizen parents. They would instead have said "born on US soil of US parents."
And if they had, they would NEVER have tolerated 3 of our first 4 Presidents holding dual citizenship with France WHILE IN OFFICE AS PRESIDENT.
The Founding Fathers and Framers simply did not agree with you that a complete elimination of any "foreign influence" was what they were looking for.
Many of our Founders themselves traveled to Europe, with many of them spending years in places like Paris, France. Jefferson was there. Franklin was there. John Jay was there.
I don't know how you can possibly argue that the President should be insulated from any possible "foreign influence," and then argue in the very next breath that we got our ideas on citizenship from a... SWISS PHILOSOPHER?
It's completely inconsistent.
Of course, that's what it is to be a birther.
[3rd paragraph from bottom]
In 1825, they passed a general and permanent statute, enabling aliens to take and hold lands in fee, and to sell, mortgage, and devise, but not demise or lease the same, equally, as if they were native citizens, provided the party had previously taken an oath that he was a resident in the United States, and intended always to reside therein, and to become a citizen thereof as soon as he could be naturalized, and that he had taken the incipient measures required by law for that purpose.
........ that every person of good character, who comes into the state, and settles, and takes an oath of allegiance to the same, may thereupon purchase, and by other just means, acquire, hold, and transfer land, and after one year's residence, become entitled to most of the privileges of a natural born subject.
………. The article in the constitution of the United States, declaring that citizens of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, applies only to natural born or duly naturalized citizens, ........
James Kent, Commentaries
Conclusions:
1] aliens had to take an oath of allegiance and/or residency before they were even allowed to hold land in some States.
2] the Oath of allegiance/residency was required prior to applying for naturalization
3] Constitutional privileges and immunities applied only to natural born or duly naturalized citizens, and
4] Residency and naturalization processes emanated from the States.
------
This being the case, how does someone who has never even applied for residency give birth to a natural-born citizen?
If nothing else, this would seem to question the concept of automatic natural-born citizenship.