Posted on 12/03/2023 11:31:10 AM PST by 4Runner
Although the eligibility of U.S. born citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent). Legal scholars in the field of citizenship have asserted that this common understanding and legal meaning in England and in the American colonies was incorporated into the usage and intent of the term in the U.S. Constitution to include those who are citizens at birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at everycrsreport.com ...
Good thing, since Trumps mom was born in Scotland.
An anchor baby of two non-citizen parents is not a natural born citizen.
correct. Because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
If a child is born in the US to two parents, both of whom are US citizens, then that child is said to be a natural born citizen (see Vattel). The purpose of this is to ensure that the candidate does not have divided loyalties between the US and the country of one or both parents.
Note that there is no requirement that the parents both be natural born themselves, only that they be US citizens at the time of birth.
Most liberals will say that the requirement is that someone be born in the US and they call that ‘native born’, which suffices for them. The question of loyalty is irrelevant for them, if it serves their agenda.
Not relevant, but then you know that don't you?*
* At least you should know that since it is clear from the record Trump's mother was at citizen prior to his birth.
Every four years, the NBC knitting circles regroup to exchange the latest about candidates’ parents and various legal theories, but the reality is that no one born in the USA is getting kicked off a ballot. Has not happened. Is not going to happen. No court is going to go there.
“Trumps mom was born in Scotland.”
Nice try. She was a US citizen when he was born.
And was a US citizen before he was born.
Funny how you forget that. Or maybe you didn't.
All four of my grandparents were born 1893-1896 in the United States (NY x 3, Connecticut) to alien parents.
When my grandfathers registered for the draft in 1917, there were 3 and only 3 citizen options: Natural-born, naturalized, and alien.
Both of their draft boards registered them as “natural born”. They certainly were never naturalized. If they were aliens, then both of my parents would be aliens, too, under this theory, and since both of my parents would be aliens, I suppose I would be as well.
How does this fit with this theory?
But not a natural born citizen who can run for the office of the Presidency of The United States unless born in the USA or a territory. And apparently, a military base is not considered US Territory for this purpose. (I didn't find out if being born in an embassy counted otherwise...)
I argued with Lurkinanloomin (haven't seen that poster for a while) that if I were born outside the country on a military base as the offspring of a military family that I WOULD be eligible, but he convinced me I was wrong.
Growing up as a military dependent overseas, I had never heard of someone sending a pregnant military female or military wife stateside to have a baby, but there were plenty of people who had, and even some who were explicitly told to do so.
You spend to much time cogitating on ridiculous things
There is a SCOTUS case involving a girl born in the US that defines NBC
That was not the common understanding according to Thomas Paine's writings in 1791. According to Paine, the opposite was true.
From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 - Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791:
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. We all know what a "foreigner" is, someone who is not a citizen/subject of the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. Foreigners and half-foreigners do not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of U.S. citizens born within the United States to be President.
It is true that case law has been intentionally weak in this area, but I contend that there is a provision in the Constitution.
The Preamble defines who is a natural-born citizen. People argue that the Preamble is not law, that it is only an expository on the intent of the Constitution. As such, it is still contains useful insights into the thinking of the Framers.
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of We the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.
Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?
How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?
That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.
If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation's posterity.
Natural-born citizens are the nation's "posterity" that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.
-PJ
The left is angling for a Soros/Schwab ticket in ‘24.
Mary Trump became a naturalized citizen before Donald Trump was born
The 14th Amendment settles this argument with the qualifier “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Born-in-the-U.S. children of Ambassadors are not subject to American jurisdiction, and are not U.S. citizens.
Good question. The immediate answer is that it doesn't seem to fit but may provide an instance of governmental confusion.
Somewhere there is a CD with the WWI draft registration form of one of my ancestors, but I will take for the moment your assertion that the only form of citizenship recognized by a WWI draft board was NBC and naturalization.
The founders clearly recognized, however, by virtue of language used at the time presidential qualifications were set out in the Constitution that there were two separate forms of citizenship: mere "citizenship" and "NBC" (naturalization not yet available in the newly born country).
That same language inasmuch as specified the NBC requirement would kick in after a specified number of years because a NBC candidate would only be created by parents who were born on or after the date of adoption of the Constitution.
What was the purpose of such language?
How does that fit into the "regardless of parentage everyone born in the country is a NBC"?
Wouldn't be true that if this latter viewpoint was controlling there would have been no need at all for any discussion by the founders of NBC?
“Legal scholars in the field of citizenship have asserted that this common understanding and legal meaning in England and in the American colonies was incorporated into the usage and intent of the term in the U.S. Constitution to include those who are citizens at birth.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790 defines a natural born citizen as one born of citizen parent. Americans have been taught that for centuries, and all of a sudden people pretend that it never existed.
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.