[Paine in the Neck]

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.

[centurion316]

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.

How do we know that this statement is correct? Is it in the Constitution? (No). Could this language be in a statute or in naturalization regulations? I don't know, but I haven't seen it. I have seen it repeatedly on Free Republic, but never with a source.

[Jack Black]

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.

It is a 'term of law' from that era. Obviously they did not wish naturalized citizens to be eligible for president. Beyond that, opinions differ.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

I’d prefer it would just get settled one way or another by SCOTU, but I think your proposed definition is practically unworkable. As an example I give you a riddle to solve for my son: born on U.S. to two citizen parents but still would not qualify as a natural born citizen under your standard, as he also qualified (and received) a foreign passport at birth. How?

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

You are focusing on the wrong word. Rather than focusing on the word "natural", you should focus on the word "Citizen."

In 1776, the normal term to refer to a member of a nation state was "Subject." How did the word "Citizen", which means something very different in the English of 1760, come to be the word chosen to represent members of the American nation state?

Why not "Subject"? It was the word everyone was already accustomed to using at that time. This word "citizen" did not mean member of a nation state at that time, it meant "city dweller." I can show you several English dictionaries of the period that define it as "Townsman."

A dictionary of the English language. by Samuel Johnson, 1768.

Cit. [contracted from Citizen] 1. An inhabitant of a city. 2. A pert low towniman. "

"Citizen. f.[citoyen Fr.] A Freeman of a City. Raleigh 2. A townman; not a gentleman. Shakefp3. an Inhabitant. Dryden"

It is also noted that it is a French word. So how did this French word come to describe the members of an Anglo Nation state? Why wasn't the normal and customary English word of "Subject" tossed aside in favor of this French word?

[frog in a pot]

...the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen... might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent...
It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.

The emphasis in your post on the word allegiance, is key. That view should be the most compelling and is supported by the historical record.

The term NBC, of course, did not arise as such at the Convention until after John Jay's July 27, 1787 letter to George Washington. The letter was sent after it had been determined the president would also serve as the commander-in-chief of the nation's armed forces.

Jay: Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Congress, statutes and amendments can do whatever is decided with different classes of citizenship, of course. But it is clear the term NBC was to be at the very core of whatever Congress decided with regard to selecting a president; and it was to be used to exclude, insofar as it could, any element of foreign influences that might bear on the CinC's role.

The 14th, of course, does not address NBC and until an amendment does so, it was provided our president should be born of American parents.