The Supreme Court disagrees with you. It is not necessary to have citizen parents if the child is born on US soil.
The issue is before the courts, and the supreme court is tryign to decide what it means to be a ‘natural born citizen’
It already decided the matter over 100 years ago in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
no sir the supreme court doesn’tr dissagree as they have not made a ruling on the distinction between natural born citizen and citizen- that IS why we are having the issue of ‘anchor babies’ being discussed in congress and court systems to this very day-
[[It already decided the matter over 100 years ago in US v. Wong Kim Ark.]]
Sorry- that was to determine if Kim Ark was a ‘citizen’ or not- NOT whether Kim Ark was eligible to be president or not- again- the statute clearly states that only a natural born citizen can be eligible to be president OR for Vice President- asnd again, this is why the distinction needs to be made clear i nthe courts and congress-
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
nowhere else is the requirement of ‘natural born citizen’ mentiioned for public office EXCEPT in the case of the presidency and vice presidency. Our fouding fathers specifically and temporarily suspended ‘natural born’ so that they and they alone could serve as our founding presidents, after which, the ruling/consitutional provision for ‘natural born’ went into effect
Form ore on the case to determine the distinction between ‘natural born’ and citizen’ classificatrions-pending before hte supreme court see: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232073