I don’t think the Founders would have supported anchor baby citizenship either.
So, this has to do with the Founders’ view. I think you have to agree in that scenario I hypothesized that Washington would not consider that child an NBC.
That said, “citizen at birth” is the designation given by Congress in the law in the area of naturalization that is an authority given to Congress by the Constitution. So, they are permitted to change what the Founders had determined, and it is legal.
So, Ted Cruz is legally able to pursue the presidency in our day. But he would not have been permitted in their day.
It’s an interesting fact to know as one makes decisions.
Now, you’re experienced with decades now of presidential elections. Tell me, will Hillary Clinton use that? What can the media do with that? More importantly, will the attacks PEEL OFF conservatives who value the Founders’ opinions?
Trump is finding out. Trump’s rise in Iowa to a tie with Cruz is probably based on his support for ethanol, but there could be a handful who are concerned with the citizenship issue.
The founders didn't support giving slaves the right to have any form of liberty much less citizenship based on soil.
I think an argument could be made that the 14th Amendment rendered the Natural Born Citizen clause void simply because the Natural Born Citizen clause was intended (in whole or in part) to ensure that the children of Indians and Slaves were not considered eligible for the office of Presidency. Therefore any provision of the Constitution that would have prevented a Slave or the Children of Slaves from being considered eligible for president would be void under the 14th Amendment. All other references to slavery or limitations on the rights of slaves were rendered void under that amendment.
As I said, the NBC clause never served it's intended purpose (to ensure undivided loyalty) and at this point is nothing more than a relic (some dead bone worshipped by people who have given up the ability to think).