[greeneyes]

Well, to use that logic another way. Congress only has the power to address naturalization of citizens. They have at various times addressed the issue of citizenship for children born in circumstances that did not include 2 citizen parents with birth on USA soil.

Looking at it this way the children born to a citizen parent on foreign soil must be naturalized citizens, because Congress has passed laws regarding them.

Minor v Happerstat notes that there is agreement that children born of 2 citizen parents on American soil are natural born citizens. It also notes that there are doubts as to the status of those born on foreign soil. It was not necessary to resolve those doubts for the case in question.

Note that Congress at one time attempted to define natural born citizens and address the issue of a citizen giving birth on foreign soil. Some people in Congress thought that being born in the country trumped all else. Others challenged that, claiming that a child born to citizen parents should be a citizen no matter where he was born.

A few years later a Supreme Court Case pretty much nullified this law, and Congress passed a similar law, but dropped the term natural born citizen and used instead, the word citizen.

Fact of the matter is the issue has yet to be resolved definitively by any court, which is acknowledged in State Department instructions to diplomatic personnel responsible for assisting people in other countries regarding their own status for citizenship.

These documents also note that it was also not definite that natural born citizenship acquired by statute was truly eligible for the presidency.

Now reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of this issue. Fact is it could legitimately be called a gray area. While John Jay may have had a specific in mind, that didn't need elaboration in his letter regarding the requirement, I have not seen anything where he actually defined it.

Instead of arguing over it, maybe it would be a good idea to decide exactly what the definition should be, and pass a constitutional amendment adopting said definition.

[Atlas Sneezed]

>>Fact is it could legitimately be called a gray area.

We agree.

>>Instead of arguing over it, maybe it would be a good idea to decide exactly what the definition should be, and pass a constitutional amendment adopting said definition.

Indeed. And perhaps to do something about anchor babies that way as well.

[WXRGina]

Instead of arguing over it, maybe it would be a good idea to decide exactly what the definition should be, and pass a constitutional amendment adopting said definition.

There's the bottom line.