Another presentation of how convenient it is for lawyers to confuse issues by arguing out of both sides of their mouths so as to separate points in arguments but keep up the appearance of honesty/integrity. I refer to the inclusion of requiring both parents to be citizens in one part of the argument but in a later part ignoring such when making argument for what they want only on the basis of ‘soil’. These lawyers knew that citizenship of parents is entwined with place of birth and both together is the only honest establishment of ‘natural born citizen’. Just goes to tell me again that in my experience with lawyers ,even if they are judges,it is as necessary to verify as it is to trust. Sometimes difficult to decide which should be first.
We do know that either applies for automatic US citizenship without any need for naturalization, the other way to obtain US citizenship. Although neither Tribe or Olson are on SCOTUS, their views are important and representative of a significant faction of consititutional and legal scholars.
With 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies being born each year and a sizeable and growing percentage of our population now being foreign born (currently 40 million foreign born in the US,) this issue needs to be decided sooner rather than later. The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest level in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.