Well, well, well. Had enough, have they?
In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth [20]. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen [41].
Thus, the modern-day consensus opinion (that birthplace alone confers natural born citizenship), though widely held, appears to be an assumption, not settled law or established fact.
Uhm...I said this before.
I was condemned for it because it didn’t match the opinion of others concerning Cruz.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t but I could have made a more convincing case than what is reported here. This is the most trivial of glosses on this subject I have ever read.
Only through convoluted logic and a total distortion of the 14th amendment could one conclude that an illegal alien non-citizen could miraculously confer legal citizenship to an individual simply by giving birth to that individual on American soil. But then there seems to be a lot of convolution and distortion going on these days.
This is correct. But then again, the constitution is an irrelevant old document designed by a bunch of old white guys with white peoples’ privilege. As even our Kenyan Dear Leader has instructed us, the constitution would just get in the way of his progressive reforms if we let it — so quiet down and go watch some more idiot box programs about how wonderful it will be for you when you overcome the rest of your miserable Bible-clutching “throw-back” bigotry and get with the “gay lifestyle.”