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.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
To which you agreed:
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").
I then go back to quote I shared before, which was from the very first link you sent me. I assume that you had this link as a primary reference because it's one that you consider the most reputable source:
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.
Thus, Barack Obama, being a citizen by law at birth (your words) due to the fact he was born on US soil, and had no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time, would also be considered a natural born citizen.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright
The 14th Amendment actually says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Citizens...not "natural-born citizens."
Should I make it more explicit? "Natural-born citizens" are a subset of "citizens." Not all "citizens" are "natural-born citizens." What you are trying to argue is that they are only the same thing, which is not true---according to the international law of the times in which the phrase was invoked.
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.
Earlier in the conversation I said this:
To which you agreed:
I then go back to quote I shared before, which was from the very first link you sent me. I assume that you had this link as a primary reference because it's one that you consider the most reputable source:
Thus, Barack Obama, being a citizen by law at birth (your words) due to the fact he was born on US soil, and had no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time, would also be considered a natural born citizen.
I will also point to this article:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen#:~:text=Under%20the%2014th%20Amendment's%20Naturalization,referred%20to%20as%20birthright%20citizenship.
The 14th Amendment actually says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Citizens...not "natural-born citizens."
Should I make it more explicit? "Natural-born citizens" are a subset of "citizens." Not all "citizens" are "natural-born citizens." What you are trying to argue is that they are only the same thing, which is not true---according to the international law of the times in which the phrase was invoked.