Replies

Tell it to the Courts.

There’s been 117 years for a ruling that differentiates a Citizen of the United States At Birth from a natural born citizen and that ruling has not yet been handed down.
In 1898 the federal government’s attorneys asked the Supreme Court to rule on: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

“To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet be was not born subject to the ‘political jurisdiction’ thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”
Wong Kim Ark won his appeal.

your statement on the 14th amendment redefining the concept of natural born citizen is just hilarious. the purpose of the 14th was to insure citizenship to slaves, and indians by extension, born in the US. this does not say anything about distinguishing a native born and natural born citizen, just that such a person is a citizen at all.

as for telling it to the courts, i don't have to. i can read the meaning from senate hearings from the one who proposed the amendment back in 1868:

btw, if you actually read the highlighted text, you'll understand how anchor babies are not citizens either... since their parents do not reside within a state and aren't under the jurisdiction of the US, as they're here illegally.

There’s been 117 years for a ruling that differentiates a Citizen of the United States At Birth from a natural born citizen and that ruling has not yet been handed down.

Funny, I can't think of any rulings that declare them to be the same as a bird either. Could it be the lack of a ruling on something which was common knowledge in 1776 does has no great significance?

I don't know of any rulings that say "Grass Grows and Water is Wet." either. Perhaps for the first 150 years of the nation's existence, the court did not have time for silly nonsense?