WorldNetDaily, always happy to quote somebody else telling lies against Barack Obama, published this comment from Mario Apuzzo:
He said in American jurisprudence “there is not one case that says being born to an alien parent creates a natural born citizen.”
Certainly there are cases where courts wrote in clear language that the child born of aliens in the United States is a natural born citizen. Examples include Lynch v Clarke and Ankeny v Daniels. If by “says” Apuzzo means that the court made a specific ruling making the children of alien parents natural born, then he is technically accurate although misleading since no court has “ruled” on the question in any fashion.
By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…
The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
Lynch v Clarke NY (1844)
In either case Apuzzo and his client Charles Kerchner are trying to hide behind the general population’s ignorance of Constitutional law when they make this argument. The authorities are clear: being born a citizen in the country always makes a natural born citizen. Read your high school civics book.