There is no evidence anywhere that “natural born” means both parents are citizens for a child BORN IN THE U.S.A. to be a natural born citizen.
It is ONLY a child NOT BORN IN THE U.S.A. who must have at least ONE parent who is a U.S. citizen.
Why can’t this be understood — particularly when I keep posting the LAW????
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
Maybe because what you’ve posted doesn’t address who is a ‘natural born’ (as opposed to simply native born) citizen? A child born outside of the US needs at least one US citizen parent to be a US citizen at all.
Was the Panama Canal Zone at the time of McCain’s birth considered ‘U.S. soil’?
Tech Ed, possibly because you do not usderstand the law you are quoting?
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
But that’s not what they said.
- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.
- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.
Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
__________________________________________
Leo’s website comes highly recommended for all beginners into the constitutional world and he will answer all questions if you are cordial.