Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: calenel
There is no ‘citizen at birth but not natural born’ class of citizen because ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘having citizenship at birth’ is the same as ‘natural born citizen’.

I encourage you to keep bringing this interpretation of Natural Born citizenship up to the group. I'm not educated sufficiently on the historical definitions of the phrase, or the exact references to it by The Founders, but there are some folks on the board who are very well versed in this who might have a lively conversation with you about it.

From what I've been able to gather in my readings on the subject, the Framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the office of President was closed to any who did not have a complete and "natural" affinity and loyalty to this country, and no other, either through location of birth, or through parentage. It was considered that only a person born on US soil, to two American parents would have a natural, un-divided loyalty to America.

So goes the theory behind the construction of that phrasing.

38 posted on 12/04/2008 12:56:15 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: Windflier
The very first law, passed by congress in 1790 and signed by President Washington, reads as follows:

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".

I wonder, how many FFs participated in the construction and passing of this law? First Congress, just a few years after the COTUS was ratified. Seems the meaning was clear enough then.

This law has been superceeded, dropping the redundant term 'natural born' and becoming gender neutral (citizen parent rather than citizen father), and was this in 1961:

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).

"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years."

Note the phrase 'citizen at birth' meaning 'having citizenship from birth' or 'natural born' that is used. Note also the section where it discusses the residency requirements for the citizen parent when the other parent is an alien: ten years a resident, five after the age of fourteen. This is where Obama may fail to qualify. His mother was only 18 years 8 months and 6 days old, meaning that without taking into consideration all the travel and other time out of the US she could have, at most, been a resident after the age of 14 for 4 years 8 months and 6 days. Several months short.

56 posted on 12/04/2008 1:28:18 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: Windflier

well said.


391 posted on 12/04/2008 2:36:41 PM PST by SerafinQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson