[SuzyQueIN]

You cite "whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have 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, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

citizen - yes

natural born citizen - no

In fact, this is the definition of an anchor baby.

[Menehune56]

In fact, this is the definition of an anchor baby.

You can see the utter contempt our anti-birther FRiends have for those of us who were taught that being a natural born citizen requires birth on US soil to citizen parents. I'm starting to wonder if a lot of this overreaction is fear that examining the eligibility issue leads to questioning the legal hair-splitting that created citizens of the offspring of illegal temporary residents.

[sometime lurker]

citizen - yes natural born citizen - no

Your opinion, but not one the courts have seemed to adopt - rather the opposite. Over and over the courts give two categories only, natural born and naturalized.

In fact, this is the definition of an anchor baby.

You are failing to make the distinction between child of an illegal immigrant (anchor baby) or brief tourist, and the child of a legal resident. As far as I know, Senator Rubio's parents, as Cuban exiles, were legal residents of the US. Like Wong Kim Ark.