So people say, but they hit a snag when you ask them to prove it.
Today I spent quite a lot of time going through the debates on the 14th amendment. (February and March of 1866.)
They use the term "naturalization" all through it. The congressmen themselves call it "naturalization."
It is an act of congress, not a natural allegiance, and it was primarily created for the purpose making former slaves, (but not Indians) into "citizens." And it doesn't say "natural born citizens."
If you look at my tagline, that comes from John Bingham, (Chief proponent of the 14th in the House of Represenatives) and he said the amendment would only apply to children born "of parents owning allegiance to no other sovereignty."
Correct!
“...only apply to children born “of parents owning allegiance to no other sovereignty.”
An excellent distinction. Made for a very honorable reason.
He was not seeking to mint the functional equivalent of new NBCs, but rather to remove impediments to ordinary life in the U.S. (and the ability to begin giving birth to new NBCs).
I can prove it because Obama was elected President. Twice.
Vivek isn’t winning anything…and if Trump asked him to be VP, you guys would be scrambling to fall over yourselves talking about how wonderful he is.