>> “U.S. law should always be a reflection of our best understanding of natural law.” <<
.
A fluffy, irrelevant statement at best.
.
>> “If someone is born a citizen under U.S. law, in recognition of the natural allegiance they have due to conditions of birth, they are a natural born citizen” <<
.
That describes the original “Natural Born” citizen, but leaves out many that are scooped up under the 14th amendment, who become citizens merely because their parents are here under a visa, but totally lack any allegiance or reason for allegiance, thus are not in conformance with the intent of the Natural Born requirement for the presidency, and in fact fly in the face of it.
The 14th amendment unquestionably created a third, loophole citizenship category without any allegiance that SCOTUS later named “Native Born.”
Not to mention that the 14th Amendment did not affect or change Minor V. Happersett 88 US 162, nor did it change the definition of Natural Born Citizen it codified into law.
Natural Born citizen = Born in the US or its territory + 2 parents who are citizens. This class of citizen has no other possible citizenship. It was this specific class of citizen which is eligible for POTUS and no other. Fair or not, it is the LAW. The law isn’t supposed to be fair. It is supposed to protect society at large. In this case it protects the entire nation from usurpation by a person with divided loyalties.
It is what it is. Fair is a subjective thing, and the law CANNOT ever be subjective.
The 14th amendment unquestionably created a third, loophole citizenship category without any allegiance that SCOTUS later named “Native Born.”
It has not been decided if children of illegal aliens and born in the USA are in fact US citizens, it has been interpreted that way but not decided by the USSC.