Then we disagree on what the Court intended - which is OK. I place more emphasis on their not citing the father’s citizenship as relevant, while you put more emphasis on they fact that the father was, regardless, a naturalized citizen.
Cheers!
I can leave arguing this to death to others, but in neither case cited was NBC status relevant. That’s not what the cases were about. The one and only place NBC becomes relevant is with the presidency.
What is troublesome to me is that we are so far out now from the days of this country’s founding that we can’t seem to grasp just how extraordinary that founding was. How extraordinary the form of government established. Everything about it. And 2 centuries later we take it all for granted. We take our citizenship for granted if we were blessed to be born here. In that sense, I’ll take an immigrant who came here legally over many native-borns. Just not for my president.
Since the US was so different from all else then known, it was imperative to the Founders to get it right, or as right as they could. 200+ years out there have been 17 Amendments not counting the Bill of Rights. Not a bad reflection on their work.