“What is the definition of natural born? There are three ways to become a US citizen, birth thru blood, jus sanguinis; birth on US soil, jus solis; and naturalization. The first two are, IMO, natural born. If Obama was born in the US, he is a natural born US citizen. If he was born in Kenya, then he has a problem.
Birth on US soil=native-born. But this is NOT, as some here seem to think, equivalent to “natural born.” If the framers had wanted to simply tie eligibility to being native-born, they would have used that term. In reality, at the time of the Constitution, native-born children were NOT automatically citizens. http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
Whoever suggested natural born is restricted to a person who is a US citizen both jus sanguis and jus solis has a good idea. But if that were the intent of the framers it’s hard to understand why the first Immigration statute labelled those born abroad of 2 US citzens “natural born.” Admittedly, this was repealed 5 years later with identical language that still accorded such individuals automatic citizenship, but removed the term “natural born.” The point is IF the framers believed the jus sanguis + jus solis definition of natural born, this statute would not make sense.
However, this does not preclude viewing “natural born” as being restricted to individuals whose allegiance is undivided.
Aside from the current contretemps over whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency or not, this is a distinction without a difference. Can you cite any differences between the citizenship of a native born and natural born citizen under existing law and practice? How is birthright citizenship, jus solis, any different from jus sanguinis citizenship under law?
The point is IF the framers believed the jus sanguis + jus solis definition of natural born, this statute would not make sense.
It makes sense because we were a new nation whose residents were formerly citizens of other countries. For very real and practical reasons, we recognized two forms of natural born citizenship, jus sanguinis and jus solis. They are different for very obvious reasons.
"Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no written national birthright rule until the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."
Yet, there are these:
1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".
1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).
1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).
1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
The 'natural born' piece relies on some of the arguments used in the 'jurisdiction' piece, which is based on a faulty premise and much subjective argument. It also discussesd points of British common law but at the very top dismisses its own arguments by quoting George Mason: "The common law of England is not the common law of these States."
Both pieces are very subjective and should not be relied upon, nor can we tell the qualifications of the author. I think he must be a FReeper, based on the timing of some updates. However, its just a website, and as we know, not everything on the web is factual.
