Here’s your “silly birther” scenario- KGB agent sneak into the country, have a child, go back to Russia with the child, raise the child to be a Manchurian candidate; come back to the US when he’s age-eligible and he runs as the international candidate in the Democrat primary. Born of illegal parents, spent one day in America… You think he is a natural-born citizen. Silly you.
Here’s your “silly birther” scenario- KGB agent sneak into the country, have a child, go back to Russia with the child, raise the child to be a Manchurian candidate; come back to the US when he’s age-eligible and he runs as the international candidate in the Democrat primary. Born of illegal parents, spent one day in America… You think he is a natural-born citizen. Silly you.
If only the Constitution and the Judicial branch had never existed you miigt have an argument, but they did, and you don't.
A child born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, i.e., subject to its laws, is a citizen of the United States at birth. The citizenship of either or both does not matter. Every child who acquires U.S. citizenship at birth is a natural born U.S. citizen. If you do not like the Constitution, seek an amendment.
Article 2: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
The secret codicil about parentage cannot be found.
A natural born citizen of the United States does not lose his citizenship because his parents take him to another country. Silly you.
Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1938)
The record in this case is wholly lacking in any showing of intent, actual or presumptive, on the part of appellee at any time to abandon American citizenship and, lacking such showing, what was said by Attorney General Pierrepont in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op. Attys. Gen. 15, is true here, that:"There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States * * *."
Like opinions were expressed by Secretary Olney on May 29, 1896, in a letter to Mr. Materne, by Secretary Frelinghuysen in 1882, and by Mr. Blaine in 1892. These and many other instances of the application of the rule to a state of facts like those in the present case are to be found in Moore's Digest of International Law, Vol. 3, p. 532, et seq. And the rule is summarized in the statement of Mr. Uhl, acting Secretary of State, in a letter to Mr. Rudolph of May 22, 1895, as follows:
"* * * no principle is better settled than that birth in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the parents, confers American citizenship. The right of election of nationality, which it is generally conceded a person born under such circumstances has, cannot be exercised until he attains his majority. The father cannot by any act of his alter the status conferred upon the son by his birth in this country."