[Fido969]

That makes no sense at all. There is nothing in the law since the 14th amendment that distinguishes the difference between a “Natural born citizen” and an individual born a citizen. That is completely made up, and the arguments for it are desperate.

Look at this thread. The proponents of this have variously claimed that the original constitution is superior to an amendment to the consitituion. They've cited English common law. They've put forth cases that deal with foreign diplomats as proof that other individual born here would not be a citizen. They've claimed "anchor babies" aren't citizens.

Finally, when cornered on the matter, they say "The law is wrong".

It's not healthy. It leads to a detachment from reality.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is nothing in the law since the 14th amendment that distinguishes the difference between a “Natural born citizen” and an individual born a citizen.

Why would there be? The only place where they come into conflict is in eligibility requirements for the presidency. It is not something that comes up very often.

Look at this thread. The proponents of this have variously claimed that the original constitution is superior to an amendment to the consitituion.

Well firstly, I am not them. I did not put forth such an argument.

Secondly, I have long maintained that the vast majority of all amendments after the first 10 were mistakes. The 14th is one of the worst. It has given us gay marriage, abortion, banned prayer in schools, anchor babies, and numerous other idiot decisions by the court.

It is so vaguely worded that you can drive a truck through it.

It may be "the Law", but it is one of the dumber parts of it this nation has ever created.

They've claimed "anchor babies" aren't citizens.

They are not. Making anchor babies into citizens was never the intention of the 14th amendment. That is just the sort of nonsense which can be read out of it because of how badly it was written.

See my tagline? "of parents owning allegiance to no other sovereignty.."? That comes from John Bingham, who is the chief proponent of the 14th amendment.

He *NEVER* intended for it to apply to the children of aliens who still owe allegiance to their home country. He said so.

Finally, when cornered on the matter, they say "The law is wrong".

Well it is. Factually wrong, as I have shown by posting that excerpt from that 1817 law book.

The founders never intended to grant citizenship to the children of people who still owed allegiance elsewhere.