Why are you even arguing with me? Your argument is not with me or txrangerete, but with the Supreme Court going back over 100 years. In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that children of resident immigrants were to be considered natural born citizens. That was their ruling:
“United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen. The Court stated that: “The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’” [5] Since there was no definition found in the constitution, the majority adopted the common law of England that was a carry over from feudal times.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
You are free to argue with the Supreme Court’s decision of 1898, and think their interpretation of law is wrong - but IT IS THE LAW and has been for over 100 years and will remains until the Supreme Court overrules this ruling. calling other people wrong or out-of-touch for being right on this point of law is silly.
oh, and as for the likelihood of SCOTUS overruling....
I am one who would like for the 14th amendment jurisdictional clause to be re-understood to AT LEAST exclude *illegal* aliens’ kids born in USA. I asked a Congressman (conservative one) about this, and he said that this question came up in a discussion with Scalia and their was not a good chance according to scalia of putting ANY restrictions on the jurisdiction claused of the 14th. That is, today SCOTUS MAJORITY would RULE that children of any illegal aliens born in USA are ‘natural born citizens’.
Given that the chance of SCOTUS changing on this point is nil, arguing with other freepers who simply are making a point about what is court-decided law is misdirected and pointless.
"The Court stated that: “The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
ZDoes the bolded sentence state these are natural born citizens? No and it specifically cites this meant yo define ONLY citizen.