Debate continues over the identity of the blasphemous son in Leviticus 24:10–23. Notable scholars Jacob Milgrom and Bryan Bibb (and some noteworthy evangelicals) identify the son as a foreigner, and thus advance that Leviticus 24:10–23 functionally establishes that non-Israelites also must act holy. Other scholars Simeon Chavel and M.C. Westcott consider the son to be an Israelite and thus identify a different function for Leviticus 24:10–23. This presentation analyzes the evidence favoring the former position (the boy as a foreigner/non-full Israelite), and argues against identifying the son as a foreigner. The argument proceeds in three parts. The first part will analyze whether the son’s Egyptian father designated the son as a foreigner and suggests the identity of his father did not. Part two will examine whether the people’s ascertaining of the will of YHWH in Leviticus 24:12 arises from the son’s mixed heritage and suggests it did not. Part three will analyze whether the son’s mixed heritage provided the impetus for the legislation on blasphemy and cursing in Leviticus 24:16 and Leviticus 24:22 and suggests it did not. If this thesis is correct then the function of the blasphemer narrative is likely not to establish that foreigners also must act holy, and thus must be sought elsewhere.