I wish this matter would clear up soon. Let’s settle this “anchor” baby problem immediately and with certainty. When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her. They were born in South Ruislip AFB, an American Base, which is considered American soil. I received the proper doumentation from the London Embassy stating that they were indeed American citizens. But are they eligible to be President? This discussion carries on and on here at FR most believing one needs two citizen parents to be considered natural born. So far the courts and society believe otherwise. I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.
As far as I'm concerned, by the standards of 1787, and in accordance with the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen", your children are "natural born citizens."
Vattel wrote that a man stationed in a foreign land in the service of his country cannot be regarded as having quit his nation. He is there at his nation's bidding.
As for myself, I have always said that where go America's fighting men, there America is also. It is under their feet, wherever they may tread.
The Founders did not intend that the Constitution that they drafted would be so complicated and convoluted that the average person would not understand it.
What do YOU believe the Founders meant by the phrase "natural born citizen"?
It should be pretty obvious that the Founders never wished to see our Commander-in-Chief having difficulty with divided loyalties. What other reason could there be?
Now consider from where such divided loyalties might come. Would a President be conflicted should the time ever come that the interests of the United States conflicted with the interests of the President's mother? Of course he would.
Similarly, the President would be conflicted it the interests of his father conflicted with the interests of the nation.
Now ask yourself, would our Founders have deemed it sufficient that only one of the President's parents be a U.S. citizen? Would the possible conflicts of interests be so reduced by having one U.S. citizen parent, that the Founders would accept having one parent of the President be a foreign citizen? Or would it make more sense that both sources of conflict be eliminated?
Why would you need the Supreme Court to explain this to you?
Are you saying you want to ki77 all the lawyers? {:-)