So, was that considered, “natural born?”
“What does it mean to be a natural born citizen?
Most legal experts contend it means someone is a citizen from birth and doesn’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.
If that’s the definition, then Cruz is a natural born citizen by being born to an American mother and having her citizenship at birth. The Congressional Research Service, the agency tasked with providing authoritative research to all members of Congress, published a report after the 2008 election supporting the thinking that a ‘natural born’ citizenship means citizenship held at birth.
There are many legal and historical precedents to strongly back up this argument, experts have said.
Those precedents were the subject of a recent op-ed in the Harvard Law Review by two former solicitor generals of opposing parties, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, who worked for Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively. They wrote that ‘natural born’ had a longstanding definition dating back to colonial times.
British common law recognized that children born outside of the British Empire remained subjects, and were described by law as natural born, Katyal and Clement wrote.
The framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like natural born, since the (British) statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War, they said.
Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.â€
“The U.S. recognizes citizenship according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace), and jus sanguinis (right of blood). Under jus soli, a person receives American citizenship by virtue of being born in the United States. By contrast, jus sanguinis confers citizenship on those born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. A person who does not qualify under either of these principles may seek U.S. citizenship through the process of naturalization.”
Blabbered about inconsequentially.
That is the key question. And the misguided justices who decided United States v. Wong Kim Ark in his favor seem to have ignored the following clarifications of the ”and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording in the 14th Amendment (14A). This is evidenced by the clarifications of that phrase in the congressional record by the lawmakers who proposed 14A to the states for ratification, these clarifications below.
Regardless what the United States v. Wong Kim Ark justices and Bill OReilly wants everybody to believe about anchor babies, the federal lawmakers who proposed 14A to the states had clarified that 14A does not automatically make a person born in the states a citizen of the USA.
The first excerpt is Senator Jacob Howards clarification.
"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that ”all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [emphases added], who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” - Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session.
And to clear up any confusion about ”foreigners” and ”aliens” in the excerpt above being used to describe the family members of ambassadors or foreign ministers, the excerpt below is another official perspective on what 14As jurisdiction clause means.
"Of course my opinion is not any better than that of any other member of the Senate; but it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision is, that ” all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means ”subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the Complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by ”subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. [emphases added] Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make . . .” - Senator Lyman Trumbull, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session. (See middle of first column.)
In fact, note that Native Americans were not regarded as citizens, regardless that they were born on US soil, until Congress made the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924.
Indian Citizenship Act
This is enough proof, for me anyway, that people born in the USA to non-citizen parents are not automatically citizens of the USA under the 14th Amendment, regardless if the parents are residents under a states immigration laws.
Insights welcome.