>>19464330
>Choose the VP that you like
>>19464397
>he is not a natural born citizen of the USA
>HE, was born in USA. His parents were not.
Since when do your parents have to be born here to be a natural born citizen if you were born here?
That's only for children born outside the US. If the child is born in the US they have birthright citizenship even if the parents aren't citizens.
False.
"Birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law. Calvin's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608), was particularly important as it established that, under English common law, "a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth—a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection."
This same principle was well-established in the antebellum United States. Justice Joseph Story described the rule in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor:
The rule commonly laid down in the books is, that every person who is born within the ligeance of a sovereign is a subject; and, e converso, that every person born without such allegiance is an alien. . . . Two things usually concur to create citizenship; first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words, within the ligenance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to the sovereign, as such, de facto.
Justice Story described as exceptions to the rule the children of ambassadors and the children of occupying enemy soldiers.
As these exceptions were narrow, the rule was quite generous in scope. As one antebellum American treatise put it:
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
It's in the constitution that they must be natural born citizens yes, but it was known that a child born in the United States is a natural born citizen, even if the parents aren't citizens. It was carried over from common law. The parents only had to be citizens if the child was born outside the country.
No I'm not wrong, that's only for children born outside the country. That is a fact and I don't care that you wont accept reality, you are in fact wrong.
I'm telling you that you are in fact wrong. The constitution doesn't define what it means by natural born, meaning whether citizenship is based on jus sanguinis (parentage) or jus soli (birthplace). Common law had birthright citizenship based on birthplace, even when the parents weren't citizens. This was carried over in the US. It was the Naturalization Act of 1790 that made is so both parents had to be citizens FOR CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
>Naturalization clause legislative history
Oh, and learn the difference between natural born and naturalization.
Why don't you try your Vivek isn't eligible for the presidency bullshit some more. I can't stand the guy but Truth matters.
You were wrong, deal with it.
Born in the country was always considered natural born. Again, it was carried over from common law. The naturalization act of 1790 made it so you needed both parents to be citizens to be considered natural born if born outside the USA. This is fact.
Vivek was born here, he is eligible.
You can't admit when you're wrong. I don't care what you claim to have looked up, you are in fact wrong.
Like I told you, I don't even like Vivek. I just can't stand lying shills.
>I went to Law School
I don't give a shit, you're still wrong. Try your credentials fallacy bullshit on someone else.