Yes, but they are not "natural-born" citizens. They can be of foreign origin and naturalized (not eligible to be President) and they can be of foreign parents and born here (the point at issue...citizens by law only, and not "natural").
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
While the Constitution does not define natural born Citizen, commentators have opined that the Framers would have understood the term to mean someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time."
A person born within the boundary of the United States, according to this article, would qualify
Not if you read the background for why the term was included in the first place. You are still confusing "citizen" with "natural-born citizen." The only way that one can be a citizen without being born in the territory is to be a "natural-born" citizen, which is: of parents who are both citizens.
This might be more compelling: de Vattel's "Law of Nations"
https://www.jayweller.com/natural-born-citizen-defined/
"The Citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they participate equally in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are Citizens”.
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
This would include people born on US soil regardless of their parent's citizenship.
The only way that one can be a citizen without being born in the territory is to be a "natural-born" citizen, which is: of parents who are both citizens.
Correct, but we're not discussing that. We're talking about a person being born on US soil and their parent's are not citizens.
Your link is...interesting...but that's a private business that does bankruptcy referrals writing all of this. There are some good points brought up, similar to what you have stated, but I'm more compelled to believe the words by those who are constitutional experts, not a bankruptcy lawyer.
Barack Obama was a "constitutional expert," so that would not be good company. The relevant reference would be the source document, de Vetter's "Law of Nations," which was the same reference in the minds of John Jay and George Washington. It pertains directly to the intention to prevent foreigners and the direct descendants of foreigners to become President. Surely, you can see that this requirement is not greeted by the internationalists. I am more compelled to accept the words of the man who was most responsible for defining the term "natural-born citizen" in international law at the time the Constitution was written.
Yes, but they are not "natural-born" citizens. They can be of foreign origin and naturalized (not eligible to be President) and they can be of foreign parents and born here (the point at issue...citizens by law only, and not "natural").
A person born within the boundary of the United States, according to this article, would qualify
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/#:~:text=No%20Person%20except%20a%20natural,been%20fourteen%20Years%20a%20Resident
Not if you read the background for why the term was included in the first place. You are still confusing "citizen" with "natural-born citizen." The only way that one can be a citizen without being born in the territory is to be a "natural-born" citizen, which is: of parents who are both citizens.
This might be more compelling: de Vattel's "Law of Nations" https://www.jayweller.com/natural-born-citizen-defined/ "The Citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they participate equally in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are Citizens”.
Well, I was actually in the middle of sending you a line from the very first link you sent: https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
This would include people born on US soil regardless of their parent's citizenship.
Correct, but we're not discussing that. We're talking about a person being born on US soil and their parent's are not citizens.
Your link is...interesting...but that's a private business that does bankruptcy referrals writing all of this. There are some good points brought up, similar to what you have stated, but I'm more compelled to believe the words by those who are constitutional experts, not a bankruptcy lawyer.
Barack Obama was a "constitutional expert," so that would not be good company. The relevant reference would be the source document, de Vetter's "Law of Nations," which was the same reference in the minds of John Jay and George Washington. It pertains directly to the intention to prevent foreigners and the direct descendants of foreigners to become President. Surely, you can see that this requirement is not greeted by the internationalists. I am more compelled to accept the words of the man who was most responsible for defining the term "natural-born citizen" in international law at the time the Constitution was written.