Replies

So ... as long as the foreign dictators’s wife conceives the baby on American soil, you are okay with the child returning to the U.S. some day so daddy can buy him an American election ... all due to the “citizenship” ruling in Wong Kim Ark?

It would help if you would actually break down and read the court decision that you're disputing. Justice Gray clearly stated the natural born citizen rule, and that exception included the children of foreign dignitaries and heads of state.

That is the antithesis of the Framers’ intent as it relates to the natural-born requirement for the office of POTUS.

And you base that on what?

You are reading an awful lot into the Wong Kim Ark decision that is not there.

And how would you know?

It would help if you would actually break down and read the court decision that you're disputing.

Don't put your fallacious words in my mouth. I don't dispute the ruling. I do happen to agree with the opinion of the dissent, which clearly showed legal precedent in Hausding and Greisser for *not* nationally adopting what we know today as "anchor babies" without some form of naturalization. That does not mean I dispute what the ruling states. Unlike you, however, I am not adding into the ruling a bridge from "alien" to POTUS that does not exist. As I've stated before, in 1898 going from "alien" to "citizen" was a tremendous leap, and not without justifiable dissent. Going from "alien" to POTUS was inconceivable, and certainly *was not* the question presented by record to the Court.