Opinion
GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE GRAY,...
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed
Citing a case that has NOTHING TO DO with the question of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN will not help your cause. There is an ENoRMOUS difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. This case deals with a citizen as citizenship is given to the child born on US soil, but the child is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because BOTH PARENTS MUST BE CITIZENS at the time of the child’s birth. This case you cited is of no value in resolving the doubt you have about natural born citizen.
Citizen, yes, natural born citizen, no.
They are not the same.
The founders rejected “ citizen at birth” as suggested by Hamilton as it would allow the admission of foreign nationals born here.
John Jay insisted on natural born citizen to exclude the children of foreign nationals, born with divided citizenship, loyalties and allegiances.
Natural born citizens are naturally citizens because they can be no other.
Anyone born with multiple citizenships is not naturally a citizen.
They may be a citizen by action of law, but they are not a natural born citizen.