The thing that makes my blood pressure go up more than any other, is when some smart mouth says with complete assurance that “everybody knows that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents.” In truth, prior to Obama posting his birth certificate online last June, nobody thought that.
This cryptically-titled article shows an example of a consensus of just the opposite.
Look Tin Sing was born in the California. His parents who resided in California were subjects of the Emperor of China. Look left the United States and was barred from returning because he lacked the certificate required of the Chinese. He sued in the US Circuit Court for the Central District of California, claiming he was a natural born citizen of the United States. In the court’s ruling (1884) (which affirmed Look’s citizenship), they a cited a case from the Supreme Court of New York, Lynch v. Clarke (1844) as follows:
In that case one Julia Lynch, born in York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.
The court went on to say:
By being born within the allegiance of a government is only meant
being born within the protection of its laws, with a consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered. … McKay v. Campbell,2 Sawy.118; U. S. v. Osborne, 6 Sawy. 406; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515.