[Cboldt]

No offense intended, and I am of course "closer in mind" to the exact words of the constitution as it is now stated, as well as the terms used in Rogers v. Bellei, Wong Kim ark, etc., but I don't find your proposed restructuring to work a clarification. I'm not clear on exactly how things work in the proposed restructuring, is another way to say that.

[Political Junkie Too]

It simply treats natural born at the same level as the age and residency requirement, and not as a legal category of citizen limited to natural born or naturalized.

In practicality, there are eight types of children:

l. Child of citizen mother and citizen father, born in the United States. (natural born citizen)
2. Child of citizen mother and alien father, born in the United States. (Obama's case)
3. Child of alien mother and citizen father, born in the United States.
4. Child of citizen mother and citizen father, born outside the United States. (McCain's case)
5. Child of citizen mother and alien father, born outside the United States. (Cruz' case)
6. Child of alien mother and alien father, born in the United States. (Anchor baby, questionable unless one supports birthright citizenship) (Jindal's and Rubio's case)
7. Child of alien mother and alien father, born outside the United States. (not a citizen until naturalized)
8. Child of unknown origin. (naturalized citizen)

The dichotomy argument is too narrow to have a full robust discussion of the matter. It needs to be expanded to encompass all eight scenarios within the context of the Preamble's intent to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

In other words, which of the above eight babies would you want to be President someday?

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Have you read the story of James McClure in 1811? Read it in this link, especially the newspaper article from October 7 1811, found at the link. It refers to a discussion of one's federal citizenship stemming from one's state citizenship during the Madison administration, as you mentioned above.

-PJ