However, in post 48 when you quoted a U.S. Law that reads A natural born citizen is one born in America of American citizen parents, you failed to cite the name or year of the legislation that law.
Why is that?
Why is it you can name the law that says, “... and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”, but you cannot provide the name of the law that states, A natural born citizen is one born in America of American citizen parents?
I did not quote a law (as I’m sure you’re well aware of), and I did not have to, because it’s self evident what the definition is, and what I said is obviously in line with the intentions, meaning, and implications of requiring natural born citizens for the 2 jobs of the office of the president. It’s also confirmed in the history of the presidents and vice presidents.
One could argue for situations like yours and McCains’ and have yet another act written (I would fight against it, largely because the types of arguments you present), but the act of 1795 makes it clear that it also means being born here.
I think the only reasonable points of contention are with someone whose parent(s) became naturalized before their birth, such as was the case with Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson. One can argue for and against fairly evenly with that one, but the whole ‘child of the illegal alien’ argument is absurd.
There’s really no reason to compromise when it comes to American sovereignty and the very powerful office of the president. Even less reason for it today, when they are CiC of the military and can start wars and destroy another nation with one nuclear submarine in 30 mintues, for example.