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.

I'm afraid I have to disagree because I question why the Constitution contains an oath for the president but none for representatives.

What did this mean as it regards "natural Born Citizen"?

"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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. " .....John Jay's letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787

Article II, Section 1 - 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. Article 1, Section 3 - No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Note that there is no requirement that the representative be a natural-born citizen, just a citizen. Therefore, my conclusion is that the Founders feared the possibility of a president with divided allegiances because of their parent’s birthplace.

Both parents must be American Citizens for a candidate to qualify to seek the office of president.

I question why the Constitution contains an oath for the president but none for representatives.

The Constitution contains a requirement to take an oath or affirmation for all other offices, but the oath itself is not specified.

Article VI Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The oath is specified for the President probably because he was also the Commander-in-Chief of the military, and the Framers feared the tyrannical use of standing armies against the citizenry.

-PJ

True, natural born citizens, but only if they were born of citizen parents, which you refuse to acknowledge.

What? You quoted me specifically acknowledging that.

Why would they specify, of citizen parents? They already discussed aliens becoming citizens. They did not mention aliens becoming natural born citizens. The children of naturalized citizens would indeed be natural born citizens.

You keep confusing what that congress actually did do, and what you wish they had done. In fairness, they addressed two separate questions in the same bill, to wit:

1. How does a non-citizen become a citizen, and what is the status of that persons already living issue and;
2. What is the citizenship status of the child of a US citizen born outside of the United States.

They simply didn't address the question of the citizenship status of a person born on US soil, probably because they didn't think it needed to be clarified. You wish they had. I wish they had. But they didn't.

Did you, by the way, just happened to slip across the border?

Don't get snarky. You don't even know my opionion on the matter, you're just getting nasty because I'm pointing out that you're making a weak argument, and I would like to you to make a strong one. And sloppy, emotional insults like that further undermine your case. But no, I did not.

Let me ask you a question.

Looks like you have two:

Why is it that, long before this was ever a controversy, people were taught that natural born meant born of citizen parents. I was taught that in American history when I had American history in the 11th grade. Later on, in the 70s, when I went to college, I remember the old professor explaining what a natural born citizen was. He had a doctorate in history. My mother’s geneneration was taught that, she told me, and her mother’s also.

You have not established that this was the case. I was in high school in the 70's, and I don't recall that being part of the curriculum. Perhaps it changed in the intervening decade. But this conversation started with you, rightly, searching for an historical source that supported the claim that to be "natural born", a person had to have two citizen parents at the time of his birth. One's decades-old recollections from high school civics, or the oral tradition passed along by your mother, are a slimmer reed than one might want to support such a bold claim. People are simply going to demand something a little more solid.

Why did all these millions of people and all these highly educated people have it so wrong for so long.?

The problem with your second question is that you're "begging the question". You're assuming your conclusion as a part of your argument. Which is always the problem with this evergreen "NBC" debate. People have strong feelings about the matter, and seem to think that emotional intensity should win the day. Well, sometimes it does, but it's usually not pretty, and often leads to unintended and undesireable consequences.

Your beef is not with me, however. I would agree that both birthright citizenship and the expansive definition of a "natural born citizen" have proved to be problematic, and we would be better off if things could somehow be moved to align more with the position you seem to be taking.

But it's like the 19th amendment: a complete disaster, but without any way to rectify the situation within the current political system.

“You keep confusing what that congress actually did do, and what you wish they had done.”

I cannot, cannot make you thick-headed people understand my point.

I am not trying to persuade anyone of the present legality of the Act of 1790. That is insanity. It did not last very long at all. It was replaced, as there have been many naturalization acts over the centuries.

My point in referring to the Act of 1790 is the fact that, in clarifying points on citizenship, it incidenally DEFINES what a natural born citizen is. Can you comprehend?

Congress can pass laws regarding naturalization, but Congress cannot amend the Constitution, and the Supreme Court with its rulings cannot amend the Constitution.

There is only one time natural born citizenship is mentioned in the Constitution and as each word in the Constitution was haggled over, it was placed there because it meant something. It was not a new concept. John Jay wrote Washington a letter, dated July 25, 1797, requesting that he “provide a strong check to the admisson of foreigners into the administration of the national government and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the army not be given nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” And as the Act of 1790 spells out, the Founders were very restrictive as to what comprised a foreigner.

Again, my point is, in the language of the of Act of 1790, there is an incidental definition of the term “natural born citizen.”

I have a print-out of the Act. It is very short. It gives the rules for people to become naturalized citizens. It is very restrictive. A naturalized citzen is called a citizen of the United States. A person born of citizen parents is called a natural born citizen.

Again, the Act addresses the possiblility of a child being born overseas of citizen parents. It says they if that happens, they are natural born citizens. It doesn’t just say citizens, as in the case of aliens becoming citizens, it says natural born.

“But this conversation started with you, rightly, searching for an historical source that supported the claim that to be “natural born”, a person had to have two citizen parents at the time of his birth.”

No, I was not searching, since I have known the language of the Act of 1790 for years. It is a historical source, about as historical as it gets.

And I care not at all that you had your head up your ass and missed an historical fact in high school.

And I am not trying to convince you of anything. If someone reads the language from a historical document and refuses to admit what it says, he is certainly beyond my help.

Another question: According to that Act, how does a person, born overseas, accrue citizenship and of what type?

I don’t think you are honest enough to admit what it states.

I cannot, cannot make you thick-headed people understand my point.

Well, whose fault is that? If you can't muster a coherent explanation of your beliefs, that's on you.

My point in referring to the Act of 1790 is the fact that, in clarifying points on citizenship, it incidenally DEFINES what a natural born citizen is. Can you comprehend?

Except it doesn't do that. The lack of comprehension is not on my side; it's you reading in to the historical record what you want to find, rather than what's actually there. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

Again, the Act addresses the possiblility of a child being born overseas of citizen parents. It says they if that happens, they are natural born citizens.

And what does your source say about any requirements of citizenship status of the parents regarding the the citizenship of their child born on US soil? I'll tell you: it says nothing. Sheds no light on the question.

If someone reads the language from a historical document and refuses to admit what it says, he is certainly beyond my help.

Exactly. We agree on that point, but disagree on who's misunderstanding this particular document.

Another question: According to that Act, how does a person, born overseas, accrue citizenship and of what type?

Didn't we already cover this?

1) If a person's parents were US citizens, and their child was born overseas, that child was a "natural born citizen"

2) If a person was NOT a US citizen, or did not have a parent who was a US citizen, that congress provided a route to naturalization of that person, which extended to that individual's already living children. (We've covered this a couple of times.)

I don’t think you are honest enough to admit what it states.

There you go again with the gratuitous insults. Why are you getting all shouty? You're just mad that you've gone down a rabbit hole and it's turned out to be a dead-end.

What these debates never get to is the substance. Put aside, for the moment, reading the historical palimpsest. Just start with first principals, and decide what should the definition of "natural born" be, and who should decide? Should both parents be required to be natural born citizens? One? For how long? Would a person also have to be born within the borders of the US, or could someone born abroad to one or both parents be considered 'natural born'? And by what process could that be recognized as law? The courts aren't going to do it, and they would certainly overturn any legislative acts that tried to clarify the issue, which leaves a constitutional amendment, which seems like a rather large lift, sadly. Any ideas?

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.

On my phone so too hard to lookup and source stuff. But a) you have a link to that argument? and b) I thought this was argued (in court maybe?) over McCain's eligibility (military base in Panama), and was pretty widely determined / accepted that he was eligible.

Which, I basically agree. Citizenship should be entirely inherited (/naturalized), not just given cause you claim you were on US soil for the birth. Hell, I'd even argue it's maternally passed, since that's the only sure bloodline without paternal testing. Natural born means both parents and e full citizens. Period.

“Well, whose fault is that? If you can’t muster a coherent explanation of your beliefs, that’s on you.”

I am not trying to make an explanation of my beliefs. I merely quoted a document. I am not responsible for your boneheadedness.

What I want to find? The exact language is: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the Unites State, shall be sonsidered as natural born Citizens:”

Inform me. Based on that sentence, what is the definition of a natural born citizen. Does it not say that “...children of citizens of the United States... shall be considered as natural born citizens?”

“And what does your source say about any requirements of citizenship status of the parents regarding the the citizenship of their child born on US soil? I’ll tell you: it says nothing.”

My source??? The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was written by the ones who wrote the Constitution.

Well, yes, it does. “And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time os such naturalization, shall also be sonsidered as citizens of the Unites States.” If the parents were not citizens, and the child was born here, it was not a citizen. We call them anchor babies today and Trump says he will stop that because it is not really legal.

Not natural born citizens, just citizens, since they were not born here.

“Put aside, for the moment, reading the historical palimpsest.”

The document is not a palimpsest. Maybe you don’t know what a palimpsest is. The Act of 1790 is about one paragraph long and can be found all over the internet.

“Just start with first principals, and decide what should the definition of “natural born” be, and who should decide?”

It was decided centuries ago and passed down to today. You actually think that the Founders were stupid enough to put a legal term in the Constitution that no one knew exactly what it was, regarding a qualification for the highest office in the land? And, by the way, the Constitution does not define ANY of its legal terms. They use terminology understood by the people of that day and they are still being used today.

from: “Chester A Arthur, a birthplace controversey:”

“Had Hinman’s tale been true, [that Arthur’s father was British and his mother was American] Arthur would have been ineligible to run for the United States executive office. Article Two, Section One of the United States Constitution states that, “No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...”

So, Himan understood, and the American people understood, exactly what a natural born citizen was, and he manipulated the concept of a natural born citizen, that the whole country understood, to smear Arthur. He was saying his mother was a citizen, but his father was not. The truth or falsity of the charge does not matter, he was using a known concept (that was true) to try to rig an outcome.

“What I want to find? The exact language is: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the Unites State, shall be sonsidered as natural born Citizens:”

Clearly, you can’t make those elisions without changing the meaning of the text. By doing so, you’re trying to expand the requirement for parental citizenship to persons born within the borders of the United States, when the text only addresses the status of persons born abroad.

“If the parents were not citizens, and the child was born here, it was not a citizen.”

Now you’re just making stuff up.

“We call them anchor babies today and Trump says he will stop that because it is not really legal.”

You’ve managed to stumble into, kind of, the real issue. The only way to deal with the anchor baby mess is to stop the mothers before they get inside the US. Pretending there’s some sort of magical reading of history that will overturn the current legal status is wishful thinking at best.

“Clearly, you can’t make those elisions without changing the meaning of the text.”

No, the clause I left out does does not change the meaning. They could have added one born on the back side of the moon is a natural born citizen.

You still, still refuse to see what is before your eyes, the definition of a natural born citizen.

“By doing so, you’re trying to expand the requirement for parental citizenship to persons born within the borders of the United States...”

Yes, yes. Can you give me a circumstance whereby the child of citizen parents born inside the United States is not a natural born citizen? That is obviously the default standard, and the Act adds to the understanding by applying it to a different contingency.

“..the text only addresses the status of persons born abroad.”

How can anyone be so stupid. It addresses the question of the status of children born abroad of citizen parents since that would be a valid queston on peoples’ mind. And it says yes, they are natuarl born. Notice no one was disputing that they were a citizen, the natural born status was being addressed.

Do you honestly think that they are saying that a person born abroad of citizen parents is certifiably a natural born citizen while a person born inside the United States of citizen parents cannot be certified as natural born.

Do you contend that the Act grants the possibility that a child, born of citizen parents inside the United States, may NOT be natural born citizen?

Look, this conversation is over. It has grown tiresome. I have no clue why you have your nose out of joint over something as simple and as historical. You did not mention the controversy over President Arthur, which occurred a long, long time ago. You are either completely stupid or trolling me or someone who is not a natural born citizen yourself and is pissed off about it.

Certainly not when the parents are in the U.S. illegally.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1

[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]

8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION

c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth: Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

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.