No, The Constitution Does Not Allow Children Born Of Non-Citizens To Become President Of The United States
(www.thegatewaypundit.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (104)
sorted by:
What about the finding that being born on American soil, within the national boundaries, makes one a natural born citizen? Any weight to that?
You have to go back to what the founders meant by "Natural Born Citizen."
It meant being born (a) on American soil (b) to two American citizen parents.
Remember, there was no such thing as a general US citizenship. Everyone was a citizen of the State where they were born, and therefor could be referred to as US citizen (until the 14th screwed it all up).
The only exception was for those who were living at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, because the USA and citizenship of the States did not exist until the British colonies broke away.
Why would they want ONLY a natural born citizen -- and not just any citizen?
Because of loyalty. Loyal to America, not the foreign country where they were born.
This is also why the 14th Amendment includes "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Any child whose parents were citizens of another country are subject to that foreign country.
Two Mexican citizens invade the USA and have a baby. That child is subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico, and therefore are Mexican citizens.
The idea of the anchor baby is not law. It is merely a regulation on how to interpret the law, and that can be reversed with an executive order by the POTUS.
THIS ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
Born on US soil = granting of citizenship automatically, although I consider that an incorrect decision and unConstitutional.
But not a "Natural Born" Citizen. Meaning born to two American citizens, on US soil.
If my parents are both American citizens why do I need to be born on US soil? People take vacations.
That would be a citizen (automatically), but not, as I understand it, a natural born citizen.
The distinction is meant to more or less equate to “didn’t need any paperwork to be recognized as American, and has no other citizenship “.
That is my read of it. But unfortunately unlike the Great and Powerful Brak 0bummer, I am not a Constitutional Scholar. So IANAL and YMMV.
The question comes when neither parent is a citizen. The Founding Fathers did not want to hand us back to the UK. Or any other foreign nation. This will definitely head to SCOTUS.