it is not vague at all. Why is everyone so challenged by adjectival phrases? “Natural Born” modifies the word “Citizen.” What’s vague? You have two choices, the phrase either narrows or broadens the noun “Citizen” Well, since “Citizen” is all encompassing, “Natural Born” has to narrow the definition.
In the march towards an answer, there are only two categories here: Where you were born, and WHO you were born to. It’s not complicated. Prior to 1795, the idea was that being born outside U.S. territorial jurisdiction, you could still be “Natural Born”. 5 years, and one French Revolution, later, Congress realized they made a mistake and corrected it with the Immigration Act of 1795. They realized that WHERE you are born matters. And it sure as hell matters to the fraud in the white house. If where you were born did not define eligibility, he would have released whatever birth document he has a long time ago.
Keep this very simple principle in mind. You want a president devoid of any divided loyalities. He must only have the interests of this nation at heart. Period.
Allowing birth overseas for eligibility creates dual citizenship, creates complication over other nations asserting jurisdiction over an individual, and certainly creates a president who would NOT have this nation’s interests at heart.
Sorry, you’re wrong. The act of 1795 does not disqualify a person born to US citizens outside the US from the presidency. Such a person does NOT have dual citizenship automatically. They might choose dual citizenship (if the host country allows it under the circumstances) and THAT would disqualify them.
This act just states the broad terms of citizenship. To be other than vague, it would state the restriction. Since it is left general, we have to defer to the previous definition. I know you all have your canned arguments, and your opinions of how it applies and what it means. But the plain wording of the act, used as evidence in this thread, does not do what you claim. It does not disqualify. “Naturalized” disqualifies, “Natural Born” specifically qualifies, the unmodified “citizen” does neither. Since it is nuetral, then we revert to the definition in effect. You CANNOT assume a modifier not used. I could just as easily assume “natural born” as you assume “naturalized”. Neither is correct. Since this act is not directly addressing presidential eligibility, and since is uses neither modifier, it is not instructive of such person’s eligibility for the office. The greatest folly of your argument is the assumption that the child of a citizen in the military or a member of the diplomatic corp would, by being born outside the US, have a greater propensity to divided loyalties - it is an absurd assumption.
I am generally ambivilant on the specific question - my concern is that the law be followed. I have not seen, as yet, solid arguments making the case you are trying to make.
I’m not saying your opinion is wrong, but I am saying that the act of 1795 does not prove you right.
That’s law, that’s logic, and that’s language.