I guess I don’t express myself well.
My point was that the term “natural born citizen” does not need to be defined. It is already defined. The definition is the definition as it was understood by the framers. I have already said what that was. If you want the Supreme Court to confirm that, great. I hope they do. But let’s be clear. They WON’T be defining the term. That has already been done. The Supreme Court will be, in effect, showing folks like you the dictionary.
Anchor babies have every right of citizenship currently enjoyed by other statutory citizens, and natural born citizens, except one. They can’t be President.
BTW, there is NO legal basis for ‘anchor babies’ citizenship, let alone natural-born citizenship. Even US v. Wong Kim Ark is not on point.
But, you can be sure that any child born in the US to parents in the US with no legal basis whatsoever cannot be said to be born to parents with no competing allegiance or not subject to the jurisdiction of another nation. That would be ludicrous. Ergo, not natural-born.
I agree with that, and don't think they should be granted citizenship. But since so many have been recognized as citizens, I seriously doubt any efforts would succeed in preventing one from running for president.
The anchor baby nonsense is the greatest weakness in our being able to control who resides in the US, but I don't see it being changed any time soon, if ever.