What you need to do is to understand that the definition in the Constitution is the definition operative at the time it was written. Natural born citizen at the time of the founding of the United States was universally understood to be the child of that is why it is not further defined.
The Founders referred to Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
“The Law of Nations” provides the Constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.
Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment- I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787
Further evidence of the Founder’s understanding of the term natural born citizen:
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated “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.”, but “considered as” does not change the definition of the term or the fact of the physical circumstances of birth, nor can conferring a privilege by statute change an eligibility requirement in the Constitution. The 1790 Act also provided that its terms only applied to the law then in effect, which was changed with the repeal of it in 1795.
When this Act was reconsidered, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in the Naturalization Act of 1795.
I will begin and end by applying some common sense to that sentence. I do not believe that there existed any universal understanding of term "natural born citizen" at the time of our founding. I doubt that there were 100 people alive at that time who even thought about the meaning of that term at that time.
When our Constitution was debated and drafted, there was great doubt about whether we should even amend the Articles of Confederation. There were huge differences in this country concerning issues such ass slavery and the need for a strong or weak central government. If we were to adopt a Constitution and entrust a federal government with enhanced powers, how were we going to protect small states from being abused by larger states. How should powers be separated within a central government? How should a central government be financed?
These were huge issues. Our nation debated all of thee big issues, but no one had time or energy to talk about the meaning to be given "natural born citizen." It just wasn't considered important. They drafted a term that would serve to prevent some stranger to wander over and become president of the United States, but there weren't more than a handful of people who had ever heard of a dead Swiss philosopher named Vattel.
We all understand the reason for age requirement (35). We all understand the reason for the residency requirement. We wanted our presidents to be someone who had clearly identified himself as American by birth and by personal background. And, we have never elected anyone who wasn't in every real sense of the word an American. I think that the natural construction - born an American citizen - is wholly adequate for the purpose of the provision. Everything else is just baloney.
But, that is just my view. If you wish to imagine that the entire country was obsessed with Vattel and his European views of citizenship, then you have that right. I think that view is crazy. I think that the vast majority of people at the time of the founding had never heard of Vattel or of any of his strange theories.
But, there is a requirement that each of our presidents be a "natural born citizen." So, as voters I think we need to apply that standard to our choices when voting.
And, that's what I do.
Thank you. Someone with dual-citizenship is not natural born, but they are a citizen. No philosophy, no “thinking”, no “believing”. Either you are NBC or you are not. Nothing wrong with being born elsewhere and having the dual citizenship but it is not NBC. That is how I interpret it but maybe I just do not understand?
Excellent analysis, Jay!
Up to the early part of last century, if a father naturalized and got US citizenship, his wife (and any children) got US citizenship also. This was known as “derivative citizenship”.
I.E., the husband and wife were treated as one.
Applying that to the 1790 act, the act could then be seen as saying that this derivative US citizenship was the same as natural born citizenship.
That, IMHO, is why they later took out the “ natural born” reference to children born abroad to US citizens (husband-wife as a unit).
Thus, we have the definition of “ natural born” as being ‘born in the US to citizen parents’.