Baloney Kim Wong Ark did no such thing. Apparently you did not even glance at the link I gave you or you are ignoring it.. 8 USC 1401 Does not define Natural Born Citizenship, What is its title?
......If you are present on US soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Again, well settled and accepted basic law. If it was different, then there are hundreds of thousands of illegally held prisoners in our country. I strongly suggest you read the entire WKA SCOTUS case. It addresses and answers both the birthright citizenship issue and the ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ issue...
I suggest you go back and read it again. It says nothing about children of illegal aliens or of temporary visitors. What does it say about NBC for eligibility to be President? The link I gave you shows very plainly the controversy over 14th amendment jurisdiction, you are refusing to look at it because it doesn't help your obvious agenda.
,,,,,,,,The problem that birthers have is that not only does nobody outside of their fantasyland agree with their discredited theory, but the rule of law from the Constitution to SCOTUS caselaw to Federal statute to state law in all 50 states all hold that jus soli citizenship is used in the US. It is also well settled law for over the past century that if you are a citizen at birth, you are a natural born citizen.....
No it is not well settled that a person born to alien parents in the US is a citizen at birth or a Natural Born Citizen. See Minor v Happersett
While you claim the law is settled, why would Justia, a legal reference website change references to Minor v Happersett? Since they are trying to it, then does not the case prove that NBC requires both parents to be citizens.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2795647/posts
try and sell your baloney someplace else it won't work here. So are you a retread?
You need to read beyond the title of a book to know it's contents, and you need to read beyond the title to know the text of 8 U.S.C 1401. That section of the United States Code has been cited thousand of times since 1952 in defining citizenship and nbc.The first clause of section 1401 states that if a person is born in the US, that person is a citizen. If you are a born citizen, then you are a nbc. Whether you and your birther buddies want to acknowledge that legal truism or remain in birther fantasyland is up to you. The entire US judiciary, legislative branches and everyone outside of birtherland use that definition.
The sole issue in Minor v Happersett was whether women gained the right to vote pursuant to the 14th Amendment. Any text in the decision regarding citizenship is pure dicta and cannot be used for precedent in a subsequent case. SCOTUS even in the decision states it is not resolving any citizenship issue. WKA decided 20 years later resolved the nbc issue and has been leading precedent for the past 100+ years. Chief Justice Howard Taft (and former Republican President) in 1927 referred to WKA as a “learned and very useful opinion.” WKA is case that has been cited approvingly and favorably thousands of time on the nbc issue and Minor has NEVER been cited for the definition of nbc.
It is time conservatives unite to defeat Obama. This birther garbage is not only a distraction, it also is being used to wrongly sidetrack one of our candidates (Marco Rubio) from running on the Presidential ticket next year. Birthers are only helping re-elect Obama with their bogus argument.