The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen

Family Security Matters ^ | January 7, 2016 | Lawrence Sellin

[CodeToad]

Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton, all met the NBC strictest definition...they were disasters as presidents.

[dangus]

I’m pretty sure that the first Congress was aware of the intent of the U.S. Constitution. The Naturalization Act of 1790 plainly defined “Natural-born” as those who were citizens at birth. “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

[Crucial]

Trump defends the Constitution. No one else seems to be interested in defending it.

[Campion]

No. Natural born, naturalized at birth by statute, and Naturalized.

Please cite relevant court decisions recognizing a difference, with regard to Presidential eligibility, between your categories of "natural born" and "naturalized at birth by statute".

[ml/nj]

There are only two categories of citizen. natural born and naturalized.

Actually there are three; native born, natural born, and naturalized. All three have entries in the Oxford English Dictionary.

ML/NJ

[Bigun]

Ollie Ackbar: Born September 11, 2001, Sana’a, Yemen

Father: Mohammed Ackbar, Born Sana’a, Yemen; Citizenship: Yemen
Mother: Betsy Johnson, Born: Bethesda, MD; Citizenship: USA

September 11, 2021 Ollie Ackbar arrives in New York, USA
Status: Natural born citizen of the United States
Qualifies for the Office of the President of the Unites States: Certainly / sarc

Is that what anyone here wants?
That sort of scenario is EXACTLY what our founders were intent on preventing!

[CommerceComet]

Ollie Ackbar: Born September 11, 2001, Sana’a, Yemen Father: Mohammed Ackbar, Born Sana’a, Yemen; Citizenship: Yemen Mother: Betsy Johnson, Born: Bethesda, MD; Citizenship: USA September 11, 2021 Ollie Ackbar arrives in New York, USA Status: Natural born citizen of the United States Qualifies for the Office of the President of the Unites States: Certainly / sarc Is that what anyone here wants? That sort of scenario is EXACTLY what our founders were intent on preventing!

Of course, being qualified to run and becoming POTUS are two different things entirely. Of course, Ollie couldn't be elected until the 2036 election.

Two can play what if scenarios. What if Ollie couldn't leave Yemen because he was accused rightly of being a Christian with an active underground ministry and because both of his parents are rightly accused of being CIA operatives. Yemen realizes the Ollie has U.S. citizenship and concludes the best course of action is to expel him despite the desire to execute him for his treasonous actions against Yemen and Islam. Ollie renounces any claims to citizenship in Yemen (Yemen also revokes his citizenship) and moves to the U.S. where he becomes a model citizen and leading critic of Islam. Would Ollie be any worse for the country than a NBC who happens to be a neo-Nazi? Or a NBC of Muslim parents who radicalizes? Or a NBC of two U.S. citizens whose family has direct ties to a major drug cartel?

[jaydee770]

“...For those who still believe in adhering to the doctrine of ‘original intent.’...”

Well, the N.A. of 1790 was written a mere three years after the constitution by a congress that included 8 of the 11 founding fathers who were also framers of the Constitution. That act provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as Natural Born Citizens.”

That’s their own words. Founding fathers. Framers of the constitution. How much more “original” does the “original intent” need to be?

[Bigun]

“Well, the N.A. of 1790 was written a mere three years after the constitution by a congress that included 8 of the 11 founding fathers who were also framers of the Constitution. That act provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as Natural Born Citizens.”

That’s their own words. Founding fathers. Framers of the constitution. How much more “original” does the “original intent” need to be?”

It’s crystal clear but so is this! Natural Born Citizenship does not depend on ANY legislative act that has ever occurred!

There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz’s citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute. Here is one particular quote of note:

Quote
“Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.” end quote

I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question. But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.

I will use myself as an example. I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution. That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.

[jaydee770]

“...hence I am a natural born citizen...”

And so is Cruz, if the opinion of the founding fathers, framers of the constitution, counts for anything. As I posted, in their own words, it could not be clearer. My point is that if it was good enough for them, who am I to argue with the founders?

You are NBC. Cruz is NBC. As galling to folks as it might be, the founders were very clear. It does not require reading between the lines, translation, or a psychic reader. As regards Cruz’s circumstance of birth, the founders considered him NBC, per their written words in the NA of 1790.

And “Rogers v. Bellei” can certainly be used as an argument hoping to sway the court when specifically resolving presidential qualifications, but until someone does that (seeks to resolve presidential quals before a court of competent jurisdiction), it has zero bearing on Ted Cruz or any other presidential candidate. That is unfortunate for the current debate. That also not my opinion, that is a hallmark of our system of jurisprudence. Don’t take my word for it, google “judicial restraint” and see for yourself.

Even as we stand here, amidst yet another circular argument that will go absolutely nowhere, the phrase “NBC” will be nit-picked to death, despite a plurality of constitutional scholars agreeing Cruz is absolutely eligible. Has any serious, noted constitutional scholar opined differently? I’m not aware of any. Do you know of any constitutional scholars on FR? Anyone who has argued a case before the SCOTUS? I don’t know of any. And despite what the founders in a congress that included 8 of the 11, original framers of the constitution, clarified for at least one circumstance of birth in the NA of 1790. Now these are not *MY* words in the NA of 1790 — they are the founders. These are the guys who puportedly were “guided by Vattel!!!”, flatly disputing Vattel a mere three years after they wrote the constitution. You argue that NBC does not require a statute and *you* *are* *right*. Why the founders saw fit to only define a single circumstance of birth as NBC in the legislative record is above my paygrade, but there can be no denying it was their intent to do so. No one “snuck” that passage into the NA of 1790. And it is every bit as *valid* as your point. You are *both* right. I have no reason to disagree with the founders because I can read their own words. It amazes me that something so simply put is denied by folks who otherwise are likely very level headed and literate. But on this one issue, for whatever reason, folks refuse to believe their own eyes and they seem to seek any plausible avenue to escape it. This is what politics does to us, I guess.

Now *legally*, the laws in effect when Cruz was born — yes, even though it is a “law” and you don’t seem to agree that “law” should have any bearing on the NBC argument — are what will be considered should (if) the time come to certify Cruz as the nominee. Since we are a nation of laws, those laws will, and most certainly do, have bearing on the issue *legally* speaking. It likely won’t go any further than those laws. It has not before with Goldwater, McCain, Romney and/or 0bama.

But back to my point, if the founders were cool with Cruz (as they told us in their own words), then that’s good enough for me. The lawyers can pick apart the rest.

Honestly, I wish Trump and Cruz would just go ahead and team up now and put the rumors to rest. They would be absolutely unstoppable. The polling would be so one-sided, the dems may just decide to cede the contest.

Good luck with your candidate!

[Bigun]

“And so is Cruz,...”

No! He is not! And neither is anyone else who depends on ANY statutory construction for their citizenship!

Obama included!

[Mr Rogers]

“What a whopper!”

Nope. There is only one mention of Vattel being brought up during all the debates on the Constitution, and during the ratification debates.

“it was cited directly by name or quoted by the Founding fathers throughout their work”

Nope. They were familiar with it and referenced it on matters of international law, but they did not discuss Vattel during their debates on the Constitution, and there was NO debate or discussion on the NBC clause. None at all, so Vattel could not have been discussed during a nonexistent debate on citizenship.

“Further, they used the term NBC and the term NBS interchangeably, / Which you do not actually bother to prove (you don’t provide a single quote or source for anything you’ve said)”

See below:

In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”

In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

For details, see:

http://www.greschak.com/articles/natactma/index.htm

Notice they sometimes used NBC, sometimes used NBS...it didn’t matter which. Thus NBC & NBS were used interchangeably - which can only happen if they were thought of as being equivalent terms.

“That can only refer to a natural born citizen, and is probably the reason why I cannot find a single translation of Vattel’s work from any year that does not contain the phrase “natural born citizen,” as that is the clear meaning of the text, though sadly I cannot find a translation from prior to 1790.”

I can. You can find them here:

http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

It includes photos of Vattel in French and in all the translations. The author of the website is a birther, but an honest one:

“Here is an English edition that was printed in 1797, in London. The phrase natural-born citizens was used in place of the word indigenes. This was the first edition of The Law of Nations (of which I am aware) to use the phrase natural-born citizens”

Vattel NEVER used the French phase for NBC/NBS, and all of his translations prior to 1797 used “natives” or “indigenes”. Since the Founders did not, they could not have been following Vattel.

“”The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel.”

Yes. The Law of Nations pertains to International Law, and Vattel was an authority on international law. The USA does take international law seriously, as any nation must. But that has NOTHING to do with the NBC controversy.

[jaydee770]

“...No! He is not!...”

Opinions vary. Including those of the founding fathers.

But good luck with your candidate!

[AmericanVictory]

Just out of curiosity, what is the authority for your assertion.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature

So in other words, not Congress. I didn't bother to read anything after these words.

Notice they sometimes used NBC, sometimes used NBS...it didn’t matter which.

Since whether the Founders followed Vattel (they did, as is well proved already) or Blackstone's commentaries on ECL makes no difference for Ted Cruz, who is invalidated by both standards, you are right, "it didn't matter which."

[Pikachu_Dad]

lol. Don’t try those in court.

---

Oxford

natural born
Definition of natural-born in English:
adjective

1Having a specified innate characteristic or ability:
Glen was a natural-born sailor
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.1 archaic Having a position by birth.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES

native born
Definition of native-born in English:
adjective

Belonging to a particular place or country by birth:
the island has a population of 56,000, 90 percent of whom are native-born Inuits

naturalized
Definition of naturalize in English:
verb

[WITH OBJECT]
1 (often be/become naturalized) Admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country:
he was born in a foreign country and had never been naturalized
(as adjective naturalized) a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Germany
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.1 [NO OBJECT] (Of a foreigner) be admitted to the citizenship of a country:
the opportunity to naturalize as American
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.2Alter (an adopted foreign word) so that it conforms more closely to the phonology or orthography of the adopting language:
the stoccafisso of Liguria was naturalized in Nice as stocoficada
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
2 (usually as adjective naturalized) Biology Establish (a plant or animal) so that it lives wild in a region where it is not indigenous:
native and naturalized species
black mustard has become naturalized in America
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
2.1(With reference to a cultivated plant) establish or become established in a natural situation:
[WITH OBJECT]: this species of crocus naturalizes itself very easily
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
3Regard as or cause to appear natural:
although women do more child care than men, feminists should beware of naturalizing that fact
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
3.1Explain (a phenomenon) in a naturalistic way.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES

[Pikachu_Dad]

You do realize that the statute you cite to ‘naturalize by birth’ does so for all citizens !

Good Grief.

Get your head out of the blender.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Excellent point. Sold.

[so_real]

My commentary was very polite. And your ad hominem in response makes no sense as I did not cite a statute in post 57. Furthermore, you quote 'naturalize by birth' as if the phrase had been used earlier. But in this thread, you were the first and only FReeper prior to use it. Perhaps you meant "naturalized at birth" or "citizen by birth". At this point, I'm not sure if your purpose is to engage in political debate, or if you are just throwing muck about and trying to muddy Cruz by association.

[Mr Rogers]

“So in other words, not Congress. I didn’t bother to read anything after these words.”

Proof you are STUPID. Or a LIAR. Or both.

If one of the ratifying legislatures believed something, that something is worth knowing. They are one of the 13 legislatures that APPROVED the US Constitution, so what they thought they were approving is even more important than what someone believed they were writing.

“Since whether the Founders followed Vattel (they did, as is well proved already)”

You do not follow something that won’t be written for another 10 years, not unless you are a time traveler.

” makes no difference for Ted Cruz, who is invalidated by both standards”

Wrong again. As I have already pointed out, Parliament had the right to change the definition of NBS, and had done so multiple times in the 400 years prior to the Constitution. That means NBS was recognized as a term of law that could be adjusted by the legislature - and all the Founders KNEW it, since the most recent adjustments had come during the 1700s and affected all the law of the colonies.