Wrong.
In Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court affirmed the framers’ originally intended meaning of “jurisdiction”. In both
cases, a child born on U.S. soil, of a foreign-citizen father, is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction at birth. Such a child is subject to the jurisdiction of the
foreign government to which the child’s father owes allegiance. Consequently, such a child is not a 14th Amendment citizen at birth .
Also.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), children born in the United States were divided into two groups: (a) U.S.-born children of U.S.-citizen parents, and (b)
all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of
the first group [22].
In Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States; her father
was a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage [23].
In Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States; his father
was a native-born U.S. citizen; and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage [24].
To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the
United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to
someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
Good synopsis...Thanks.
hussain’s father was British subject in the US on a student visa.
I blame the GOP for the damage done to our country during obama’s caper. They should have called him out early on and exposed him as a fraud...all we got was crickets..and biden.