Posted on 02/25/2020 10:14:36 AM PST by ransomnote
Just did a search, lots of articles posted and huge discussions on this topic starting around 2007-8 and onward for some years.
Hmm, very difficult to find the articles I want on FR. So, here is one excellent one. I know you grok it but others may not.
The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen
January 7, 2016
Family Security Matters
by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD January 7, 2016
The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen
Many members of the political-media establishment are either deliberately misrepresenting facts for political reasons or they are simply ignorant of those facts, that is, the manner in which one becomes a citizen as opposed to the concept of natural born citizenship.
Those who equate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” often misinterpret Constitutional law and statute law, the latter meaning that Congress may pass laws only defining the manner in which one becomes a citizen, either citizen by birth or a naturalized citizen, not the Constitutional concept of natural born citizenship.
In addition, many people mistakenly cite English Common Law as the origin of the natural born citizen concept, which, in that regard, the Founders rejected; rather than its true origin, the codification of natural law described by Emerich de Vattel in his 1758 book “The Law of Nations.”
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states:
“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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Recognizing the Constitutional nature of the natural born citizen concept, there have been numerous attempts, in recent years, both by Democrats and Republicans, to amend the Article II “natural born citizen” clause, including:
January 14, 1975 – Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
June 11, 2003 – Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
September 3, 2003 – Democrat Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.”
September 15, 2004 – Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”
According to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution, a candidate for the Presidency must be a “natural born citizen,” that is, a second generation American, a U.S. citizen, whose parents were also U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth.
That there is a difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” has been clear since the writing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787 and its ratification on June 21, 1788.
A first draft of what would become Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, submitted by Alexander Hamilton to the Constitutional Convention on June 18, 1787 stated:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Fearing foreign influence on the President and Commander in Chief of the American military, the future first U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, on July 25, 1787, asked the convention presiding officer George Washington to strengthen the requirements for the Presidency:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
The term “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” referred to loyal Americans who lived in the thirteen colonies at the time of the Revolutionary War, thus establishing the first generation of United States “citizens,” upon which future “natural born” citizens would be created. The Founders, under Article II, allowed these original U.S. citizens to be eligible for the Presidency.
As understood by the Founders and as applied to the U.S. Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” derived its meaning less from English Common Law, than from Vattel’s “The Law of Nations.”
They knew from reading Vattel that a “natural born citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents (Vattel, Section 212 in original French and English translation).
That is the definition of a “natural born citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.
There are historical arguments too numerous to include in a short article, which explain why the definition of “natural born subject,” as found in the English Common Law, was not used as the basis of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution because Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a constitutional republic.
Legal precedent and interpretation leave no doubt regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen.”
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
John Bingham, father of the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to American slaves after the Civil War, stated on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”
In 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
As recently as September 2008, in a Michigan Law Review article entitled “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause,” Lawrence B. Solum, then John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote:
“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.”
Citizen parents, plural.
Just as the Presidential oath of office is unique “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” the eligibility requirements for President are equally unique, to ensure allegiance and prevent foreign influence at the highest levels of government.
I think the Founders had anticipated the mess in which we find ourselves today.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution.”
OK.
Did you read any of the ref’s I posted?
Thanks.
You’re welcome. I read about this topic until my eyes dropped out of their sockets...learned a lot. All kinds of freepers chimed in remember their civics/government classes, and what they learned when overseas either as parents in mil, or children of mil members, and even posted a State Dept thing - some kind of handout, or statement or whatever, about NBC. Even 30 years ago or so, the State Dept said that one could not run for president unless born on US soil to 2 citizen parents.
But with globalism/commiepukedom this universal understanding of the Constitutional requirement for President and VP got thrown away and “forgotten” about. Pretty intereting.
“However, I think it’s fair to say, The Constitution was not emphatically exactly precise on the issue of soil vs jurisdiction.”
If you know what a natural born citizen is (as the founders did), they were exactly precise in their definition. There is no ambiguity there - we’ve just selected to not know it, or not admit it.
“What about someone born in an embassy overseas?”
A couple questions, since I don’t know and haven’t bothered to look it up:
1) Is a US Embassy considered by the US as US soil? If it is, someone born inside an Embassy to US citizen parents would likely be considered “natural born”.
2) Is there a law that says that children born overseas to citizen parents (regardless of inside or outside an embassy) is a US citizen. If so, they aren’t NBC. Keep in mind in all your scenarios that if it requires a law to make them a citizen, they would not have qualified by the definition of the founders.
Lived overseas for 16 years and all Americans (one or both parents) of children born there had to file the birth of their child with the embassy/consulate to get them a US passport. (This was one of the big questions with Cruz - did his mother do that?) In any case, filing the birth with the embassy/consulate was a requirement of a law for them to be US citizens - not NBC, just citizens. This is essentially a naturalization (which is within the purview of Congress), but did not require a naturalization ceremony.
“Evidently it IS true that the Supreme Court has indicated that Congress can declare the definitions & criteria of Natural Born Citizen”
No. They haven’t. They don’t have the power to give someone the ability to change the definition of words in the Constitution. If they could, every generation could change the meaning of everything in the Constitution (again - a “living, breathing” constitution.) All the SC can do is interpret the words, theoretically at least, according to the original meaning. We’ve seen how that works out over time though, and especially recently with traitorous lefty justices/judges.
Thanks, lj.
I figured you would still be able to find all the relevant legal cases.
You were an awesome warrior on the “birther” threads.
Curiously, I read every Cussler novel up until ‘Sahara.’ It simply got too light for me, not able to be taken at all seriously. More strangely to me, they made a movie out of that one.
I think that ‘Raise The Titanic’ was the only other film made that I can recall from his works.
Oh no I wasn’t. I was just a small chihuahua yapping at naysayers’ heels and trying to support the actual researchers.
Re: Lenity discourse
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eloquent and important.
Thank you.
If you have to have a law that says you’re a “natural born” citizen, you’re not. NBC’s don’t need any laws. They can’t be anything other than a citizen of where they are born, if both their parents (Naturalized or Natural Born) are citizens of that country also.
(As an aside, when the country was founded, since the wife took the citizenship of the husband, I would be open to discussions of having just the father required to be a US citizen. The Cable Act in 1922 gave the wife her own citizenship).
Anything other than this combination - soil and parents - gives rise to multiple citizenship - which invites intrigue - something the founders were trying to avoid.
The quotes from CRS, FAS, even the supreme court are from organizations with an agenda. They do not have the best interests of the united States in mind or heart.
If they did, they would take the most restrictive interpretation of requirements for the highest office in the land. I included the supreme court in there because they can be wrong and often are, i.e. Dredd Scott, Kelo v New London.
**********************************************************************************************************
SLIDE-Since it’s festival, I’ll chime in. I’m not really big on this issue, because I think it’s a gray area that needs to be clarified by a constitutional amendment. I don’t trust the Congress or the Courts to do this without some check on what they do—hence the need to counter balance with at least 2/3 of the states ratifying.
You have made Very good points. While I did not participate in all those heated discussions, I read them and researched on my own.
My conclusion was that it was a gray area that could have been avoided by providing a definition of “natural born” citizen requirement for President within the constitution.
Given the discussions when Congress passed the 1790 and 1795 citizenship acts, it seems that opinions were somewhat diverse even then. With one of the comments being that a child born to citizen parents abroad had more right to be a citizen than one merely born on US soil to foreigners.
The state department guidance in 2008 was that a child born in a foreign country, when one or both parents were US citizens was considered a natural born citizen. However, it also stated that it was not certain whether that term could be applied with respect to qualification for President. And a short discussion of the ambiguity.
Congress was given the right to pass laws regulating naturalization. Would it even be Constitutional for Congress to pass a law defining this requirement for President?
Could Congress pass a law that the President would have to be 40 years old? No that would take a Constitutional amendment. So it’s likely that such an Amendment to the Constitution would be needed to define the term as it pertains to Presidential eligibility.
I can see valid points on many sides of this issue, but to me it’s a gray area legally and constitutionally. The more pressing issue to me is anchor babies, and tourism babies—I don’t think they should be considered citizens, when their parents are not citizens and especially if the parents are here illegally. YMMV.
“SLIDE-Since it’s festival, I’ll chime in. I’m not really big on this issue, because I think it’s a gray area that needs to be clarified by a constitutional amendment. I don’t trust the Congress or the Courts to do this without some check on what they do—hence the need to counter balance with at least 2/3 of the states ratifying.”
I agree that the definition needs to be clarified, but not by amendment. If we have to define one “unclear” term in the constitution by amendment, then we would have to define them all, i.e., bear, infringed, speech, search, assembly, press, cruel and unusual, probable cause, etc. Big disagreements on all of these. Future generations would pass amendments to repeal our amendment and install the definition du jour.
Clarification is the province of an honorable Supreme Court that studies what these terms originally meant, and why and how they came to be used in the Constitution. Not something I’ll see in my lifetime, unfortunately, unless Trump is completely successful in replacing 3-4 justices with originalists.
While the founders were visionaries, they could not envision a time when Americans would be so lazy that they would let the beautiful republic they had been bequeathed dissolve beneath their lazy feet and fat asses; that they would allow their children to be separated from the history of how this country came to be and the gifts that liberty provides.
“The more pressing issue to me is anchor babies, and tourism babies—I don’t think they should be considered citizens, when their parents are not citizens and especially if the parents are here illegally. YMMV.”
My mileage doesn’t vary on this - at all. The history of and discussions on the 14th amendment, to me, were quite clear. It was NEVER intended that children born here to foreigners (legal or illegal) would be citizens of the US. You are spot-on in your thinking.
Already done.
That's why I'm sticking with CJ Morrison Waite and the definition contained in his unanimous SC opinion from 1875.
“Already done.”
I agree, but apparently it takes something more definitive than “...it was never doubted...” for most people today - even those on our own side (cough) Cruz (cough).
Very good points, and you are correct. However,The honorable Supreme Court is not likely to accept such a case, based on their track record. And frankly, some of their rulings on citizenship boggle the mind.
And there have been changes, such as women voting and Indians now being citizens of both the Indian Nation as well as USA etc.
Another question I have also, is the case where 2 citizen parents have a child born on USA soil. Take the baby to another country to live for 18 or 19 years. Then when he’s 35 he’d be eligible, but I think it’s important to be raised in America too, so I’m not certain I’d like that.
It gets back to what do the majority of the people want-a political issue I guess, which is why the Supremes deliberately stayed out of the question the last time.
So I favor the amendment not for the purpose of definition so much as developing a consensus of the people as to who should be considered eligible for president. But you’ve made good points, and for sure it’s within Supreme Court’s venue.
So, it is a mutation of the 2002 (and 2008?) SARS influenza strain?
It was called corona in 2002, I think but gained the scarier SARS tag in 2008.
Still, it’s the flu.
Any description of those who died, like demographically or health wise.
Betting on very young, elderly and malnutritioned.
You know, like everyone in rural china...
Well, that sounds like "a fact" to me...and all the other justices agreed. "It was never doubted" means...nobody ever challenged it...Seemingly, all credible scholars at the Supreme Court IQ level believed it. That was the definition in 1875, and that was a lot closer to the time of the founders than now.
It absolutely flies the face of all those anchor-baby "NBC" fools.
I don't even know how they come up with that crap.
(I know, I know...lying globalist morons)
Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.