Comment: British law in effect in 1700's

I basically agree that under the US Constitution (including the 14th amendment), no foreign-born individuals are eligible for the presidency. However, there is one correction that needs to be made to the argument: the phrase "natural born citizen" (or actually, "natural born subject"), as it applies to foreign-born children of citizens/subjects, was in fact defined at the time the original Constitution was written, under British law. The relevant text can be found here: http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1730.htm

This is known as the British Nationality Act (BNA) of 1730.

The relevant excerpt is : That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may ... be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.

Remember that our entire legal system rests on the British system, and that all of the Founders were British subjects during their fomative years.

I think that early Americans may have been wrestling with the problem of breaking away from their British citizenship, and that the ultimate solution was to give the place of birth priority over (or parity with) parentage, as exemplified in the 14th Amendment.

However, I don't think that there is any doubt that at the time the Constitution was written, the words "natural born citizen" meant to the Founders exactly the same thing as the BNA's "natural born subject", including the status of foreign-born children of citizens.

Greg Shenaut