Then explain to me what the phrase “anchor baby” means? There’s children born every day in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Illinois and elsewhere in this country to two illegal aliens who are American citizens at the moment of their birth.
I agree with the philosophy that ASA Vet cited, but that has no force in American law. The law in the U.S. (as unfortunately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court) is that if you’re born on American soil you are a citizen regardless of your parents citizenship. Under U.S. law your parents’ citizenship only matters if you are NOT born on American soil.
Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), stated:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,
it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves,
upon their birth, citizens also.
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Dred Scott even removed the word “father” and replaced it with the word “parents.
”Vattel’s law: EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, &212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Act of April 9, 1866) first established a national law that provided:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,
are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27).
Not being subject to a foreign power includes being free from any political and military obligations
to any other nation and not owing any other nation direct and immediate allegiance and loyalty.
The primary author of this Act was Senator Trumbull who said it was his intention
“to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.”
Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”
In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens,
for if one is not, the child would inherit the foreign allegiance and loyalty of foreign parent and would thereby “belong to a foreign Government.”
Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section,
in commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is,
in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.
Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”
John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866
____________
The law creating “anchor babies” was not in effect when Obama was born in 1961. That is why so many people are confused on this point, IMHO. One needs to look at the laws in force at the time of Obama’s birth, and according to those laws he could not have had US citizenship granted to him through his mother, regardless (given her age at the time). One also needs to take into account the fact that Hawaii’s laws were still a little different than the rest of the nation due to its being a very young state still at the time...
Even if I’m wrong on interpreting the law regarding Stanley Ann not being able to confer citizenship, Obama is STILL without a doubt a “dual-citizen” by birth given that he DID receive British citizenship through his father (regardless of where he was born - even if it WAS in Hawaii...). That fact in itself would disqualify Obama under the Constitutional requirements...
It’s ironic that his dual-citizenship rests in Britain — it should be very easy to see the parallels here since one our forefathers’ main concerns was to prevent someone loyal to Britain from becoming President. Unless Obama is over 250+ years old, he doesn’t qualify, period.
[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so I definitely could be wrong, but these laws aren’t THAT hard to understand - especially not the section in the Constitution that is applicable in this matter.]
Those are “native born” citizens — not “natural born” citizens. You have to go back to the founders and the meaning of the language that existed at the time the Constitution was written.
There is a lot written about it, if you care to look it up.