Hermit wrote:Seth wrote:Hermit wrote:Seth wrote:I've got better things to do.
You think that making assertions without factual support is a better thing to do than to back them up? Figures.
It's not an assertion, it's a fact, and one that has been well understood since the 17th century at least, as you would know if you bothered to look it up.
I did read the Wikipedia article on the natural born citizenship clause a few days ago. It contains not as much as an allusion to a requirement that both parents of a person born on US soil must be US citizens at the time that person is born in order to be allowed to become president of the USA. Your bald assertion remains just that: a bald assertion.
Nor does it authoritatively state that it is NOT a requirement by citing any authority.
On the other hand, the prime authority, Vattel's "Law of Nations" makes it clear that "natural born" citizenship was expressly excluded if either parent was not a subject of the Crown, among other twists and turns of rather byzantine English common law. In every case, reference to the citizenship of a child born outside of the dominion of the Crown, the most basic requirement for citizenship, or for that matter to be eligible for naturalization by Parliament, was conditioned on BOTH PARENTS being subjects of the Crown, not to mention the restrictions on the reasons that the parents were outside the dominion of the Crown that controlled the citizenship of the child. One such exception was for Ambassadors and the other was for soldiers who were assigned outside of English dominion during long wars who might have their English-citizen wives with them, as was not uncommon at the time.
Nowhere is there any mention of a child born of one British parent and a foreigner being entitled to British citizenship AT ALL, even through naturalization, which was reserved for children of British subjects who happened to be born outside of the Crown's domain.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.