The author's review some of the history of the term at the the time of the adoption, and how subsequent laws have changed the meaning of the term.
Another way that liberals can modify the Constitution without doing the hard work of amending it.
This may become an issue again in 2020 and 2024 with at least two of the leading candidates having at least some plausible issues with their "Natural Born" status.
It appears that neither of Nikki's parents were American Citizens at the time of her birth (only 3 years after then moved to the USA). She was however born in South Carolina, the State she eventually became Governor of.
Under the standard that the article proposes she would qualify, she was a citizen at birth by virtue of being born on American soil. Or, put another way, a legal anchor baby (that his her parents were not citizens, but were in the USA legally when she was born here).
Tulsi's story is more complicated. Her mother is an American from Indiana, and her father was a resident of American Samoa. Something I did not know, until recently, is that Somoans are not American citizens. (Unlike say Puerto Ricans or Virgin Islanders or most other American possessions).
So mom citizen, dad non-citizen, born in Leloaloa, American Samoa.
Again, under the author's standard she is Natural Born because she was a citizen at birth, via her mother's citizenship. (She was born in 1981).
Of course many Freepers during the years of the Obama birth controversy claimed that the standard for Natural Born was not "born an American citizen" as this article claims, and seems to be the popular understanding (or misunderstanding) of the term.
Rather they have put forward that Natural Born Citizen requires that the person in question be soley a American Citizen at birth with no divided loyalty from any parent. That is: both parents are are US citizens at the time of birth AND the person is born on US territory.
And of course there are many variations and permutations: only birth on the soil of a State can grant citizenship (not territories), only the father's citizenship is determinate of birth citzenship (the article notes this was the way things worked for England in the period of the adoption of the Constitution).
Maybe with our two new Justices we will have the opportunity to litigate this in the future.
The specter of a Samoan Hindu vs. a Indian Sikh as our choice for President in a future election is a real possibility.
In another two decades natural born will mean having human parents and not cyborgs :)
It is raised as an issue only when there is a Republican running for president. When it is a marxist-loving m*slim-loving America-hating pro-past-birth-abortion bastard it’s not brought up.
Somoans are not American citizens. (Unlike say Puerto Ricans or Virgin Islanders or most other American possessions).
**************
Question: If Puerto Ricans vote to become an independent nation, rather than a state, do the Puerto Ricans born before that vote remain US citizens?
Nikki Haley (née Nimrata Randhawa) Wikipedia biography: Nikki Haley
Tulsi Gabbard Wikipedia biography: Tulsi Gabbard
merely being an American citizen, or an American citizen at birth, does NOT make one a ‘natural born citizen’
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
This is simply not the case. It is insufficient. It is spin meant to obfuscate the matter so that Cruz, Jindal, and others could claim to be NBC.
The Constitution, Art. II, says in pertinant part: “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;”
Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with “No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? Why is the word “natural” inserted? It is a matter of allegiance.
A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. That is, there is no natural allegiance of the offspring to one or the other parent’s country. It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.
If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens at the time of one's birth, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent. In short, a natural born citizen is one who cannot be argued to be anything but; there is no possible argument that he might be a citizen elsewhere. [footnote: Also, in their time, the rules of royal succession held sway throught much of the world and the Founders wished to forstall any potential claims by the crowned heads of Europe or their scions to sovereignty in the US.]
Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., of one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.
Which law made her a citizen at birth? And how did she recieve a U.S. birth certificate?
I really want to know...How are U.S. birth certificates handed out to children born here to foreign nationals? The meaning behind the 14th is not a mystery. It's cyrstal clear
None of this will matter unless it is to be used against a Republican candidate.
The corruption of our courts and laws and the stupidity of our citizenry never ceases to amaze me.
Ps: there are articles that innocently confuse the issues - and there are articles that deliberately seek to confuse the issues.
I’m not sure this discussion is any more than an academic exercise. In my, perhaps narrow-minded, view if a candidate is on the ballot, he or she has been deemed qualified. If others, want to take it to court, more power to them. Legal fights are not at all in my wheelhouse.
.
>> “and how subsequent laws have changed the meaning of the term.” <<
That is a fallacy. Statute law cannot change the constitution.
Being born here makes you a citizen only if one of your parents is a citizen, or your parents are here by legal process.
.
No court is ever going to rule that someone who was born a citizen is not a “natural born citizen”. The only real question about Obama was whether he was born outside of the USA, because the law the time required the citizen parent to have lived in the USA for five years after reaching the age of 18, which his mother had not done. That law was passed to prevent the children of young soldiers from claiming citizenship and has since been changed. But the idea that SCOTUS will rule there is a third kind of citizen who is born a citizen but not a NBC is delusional.
“”arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.””
I don’t believe that was the argument where obozo was concerned but was added just in case the readers/voters couldn’t think for themselves.
Only a matter of time.
Good enough for me.
That article contradicts what our government tells LEGAL IMMIGRANTS studying to become naturalized citizens of the USA!
Another birther thread. Oh goody.
Right, but given there are over 100 comments on this thread I'm sure that some will disagree.