Actually, it sounds like his bill doesn’t address the NBC issue; he is looking stop the “anchor baby” phenomenon by denying citizenship to people born on US soil whose parents are not legal residents. Having not studied the details of the bill, I am prepared to stand corrected.
>> “he is looking stop the “anchor baby” phenomenon by denying citizenship to people born on US soil whose parents are not legal residents.” <<
.
The constitution already does that.
You're confusing them with facts. The commenters are befuddled and beset by their own tin foil theories.
If I were a betting person, and I'm not, I believe SCOTUS would decide only three classes do not fall under Natural Born Citizen: 1. those having formally renounced U.S. citizenship 2. those naturalized 3. those never citizens.
I'm not saying it's where I might draw the line, or necessarily where the Founders intended to, but I think it's where SCOTUS would set the standard if the question ever reached them.
I believe this court would affirm Jindal and Rubio as qualified.
However, as you point out, Vitter's bill has NO baring on eligibility for POTUS or VPOTUS. It's about the culture of anchor babies and birth tourism. From the article, it sounds like a bill worthy of consideration.