Defining Natural-Born Citizen

The Federalist Blog ^ | December 4, 2008 | P. A. Madison

[centurion316]

What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.

What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean

Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?

[Windflier]

...If that is true then many of our founders were not eligible for the presidency. One can say that laws were passed specifically giving exception to those living in the United States at it's inception.

What you say is true, and the Framers made allowance for the fact that they were born in what was essentially British territory before the formation of the Union.

I refer to the famous "grandfather clause" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5:

"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;"

This one line in the paragraph allowed them to hold the office of President, but no one thereafter, who was not a "Natural Born Citizen" of the US.

[fightinJAG]

Sure, when talking citizenship, you can turn a “robin” into a “eagle.” Happens every day when a citizen of (fill in the blank) naturalizes into a citizen of (fill in the blank). Germans become Australians, Canadians become Americans, VietNamese become French and so on.

This analogy went to rebut the argument that there was no “natural” citizenship, ONLY citizenship by operation of law. Wrong.

I’m certainly not suggesting, as your discussion seems to indicate, that someone born in America is not an American citizen. They are. The question is whether they are a “natural born citizen” and, on that point, I would say it depends on the citizenship they received by descent (from their parents).

I have posted many times that birthplace determines citizenship (as you cite) because the law says so. That is precisely why birthplace might not be relevant to whether one is a “natural born” citizen-—because that status seems to be one that is attained *apart from* the operation of law.

So you argument that being born in America makes one an American AT birth, while true, in no way refutes the argument that being born in America does not make one an American BY birth.

And, again, there is *no difference* between the citizenship attained AT birth and the citizenship attained BY birth, except the former is not eligible to serve as president and the latter is.

[fightinJAG]

No problem at all. I was very happy to see this posted again. There are always people-—me, included-—who are just tuning in at any given time.

[Non-Sequitur]

I’m certainly not suggesting, as your discussion seems to indicate, that someone born in America is not an American citizen. They are. The question is whether they are a “natural born citizen” and, on that point, I would say it depends on the citizenship they received by descent (from their parents).

A concept unsupported by law or any section of the Constitution I'm aware of. Nor by a considerable body of foreign precedent.

So you argument that being born in America makes one an American AT birth, while true, in no way refutes the argument that being born in America does not make one an American BY birth.

I'm suggesting that it does. We recognize two types of citizenship; citizenship at birth and naturalized. If citizenship at birth and natural born citizen are not synonymous then you'll have to point out where that is detailed.

[MHGinTN]

Do you acknowledge that Obama held dual citizenship at birth, if he was born in the U.S.? Do you realize that he became a naturalized citizen when his British citizenship expired, according to his own assertion on his website? [BTW, aren’t those obamanoid worship kneepads too tight for you?]

[HawaiianGecko]

In short:

— a natural born citizen would be one who, by operation of nature (descent) was born American, regardless of birthplace;

— a citizen would be one who, by operation of positive law, was deemed an American at birth, regardless of parents’ citizenship; and

— a naturalized citizen who, by operation of positive law and volition, becomes an American sometime subsequent to birth.

That's a good argument and the best definition I've ever heard argued concerning natural born citizen.  The next step is convincing a few key judges.  I haven't read any decisions that would rate as precedence agreeing with you, but there's always a first time.

[Non-Sequitur]

Do you acknowledge that Obama held dual citizenship at birth, if he was born in the U.S.?

Yes I do.

Do you realize that he became a naturalized citizen when his British citizenship expired, according to his own assertion on his website?

No I don't, because he didn't. If he was born in Hawaii then he's been a natural born U.S. citizen from that day to this.

[BTW, aren’t those obamanoid worship kneepads too tight for you?]

Not Obama worship, though it's easy for you to mistake it as such with your raging paranoia.

[MHGinTN]

One last piece of data for your obsequious position before the obamanation: the Child Naturalization Act of 2000 states that any child born before 1983 has their nationality determined by their father. Have a nice evening ...

[fightinJAG]

Thanks.

Feel free to link to the posts to get the ideas circulating.

The guy writing this article is making the argument that “natural born citizen” must be a status that is attained by descent, not birthplace. So I hope his analysis is getting lots of airplay. I am sure there are many attorneys furiously trying to pull together amicus briefs should the opportunity arise.

The framers’ were most concerned about a person with ties to the old country becoming Conmmander in Chief. The point of limiting eligibility was to limit the possibility of foreign allegiance.

The interpretation I set out here is the best one for accomplishing what the framers wanted to accomplish. Essentially it ensures that the presidency is limited to those who are at least second-generation Americans.

It would have made no sense for them to accept that merely being born in the U.S. made one eligible to be Commander in Chief. Imagine a palace intrigue in which an heir to the French or English throne was birthed in the new nation and thereby eligible to run for president when he came of age. They were seriously worried about usurpers who would have a foreign allegiance becoming president.

[Kenny Bunk]

Thanks to the massive influx of married and unmarried Third Worlders dropping their anchor foals hither and yon, I would imagine there's a body of case law on this topic and related areas.

What is still unclear to me is if these anchor babies are considered natural-born or not. It is clear that we are granting them citizenship, even though there is no constitutional provision for doing so, no matter who, or where, the father is, and who's their Mama.

Of course, the Mexican government, for example, is also happy to grant them full citizenship in the home country of the Mom, or Mom and Dad, making them, I suppose, Dual Citizens. So if I understand what I am being told here (my problem, not yours), the granting of that foreign citizenship means little Jose and Maria are American citizens, but would not be "natural born?" Thanks.

[MHGinTN]

A person with divided loyalties at birth cannot be a ‘natural-born’ citizen as the framers posed the terminology in the 1795 law updating the 1790 law.

[Windflier]

Well, I can’t really answer your questions. Those are the biggies that everyone’s asking, and no one knows the answer. It all depends on what good people are going to do about this horrible mess with our immigration and citizenship laws.

In my mind, there is only one clear path to sanity and salvation for the country, and that is to restrict American citizenship to those born on our soil of at least one American parent, and to restrict Natural Born citizenship to those born in America to two American parents.

As far as immigration is concerned, we’ve had a border-free holiday going on for 25 years or more now. The smart thing to do, would be to close the southern border completely, and institute at least a 10 year moratorium on any new immigration, except in the most extreme cases.

If the nation doesn’t take some simple, and common sense approach to this, we probably won’t survive as a unified political entity.