Replies

No, it’s just confusing. ;)

And here’s why:

First, no one knows for sure what the standard is. The Supreme Court has never squarely addressed what it takes to be eligible for the presidency as a “natural born citizen.” (And it’s not defined in the Constitution.)

Secondly, it’s confusing because if there is a distinction between being “naturally” a citizen (by descent) and “legally” a citizen (by operation of law), both are attained upon birth.

IOW, if your parents are American citizens when you are born, you are an American citizen upon birth simply because they are, and regardless of where you were born.

If you parents are not Americans citizens when you are born, but you are born in the U.S., you are an American citizen upon birth because U.S. law says you are.

So both citizenship statuses are attained upon birth. That’s confusing.

Moreover, there is **NO DIFFERENCE** between these two citizenships EXCEPT in one rather remote and specific circumstance that doesn’t affect most people: one’s eligibility to serve as president.

The argument is that only those who attained citizenship by descent (and, therefore, are at least second-generation Americans) are eligible. Those who attained citizenship by law (such as “anchor babies”) are not eligible (though their children, obviously, might be).

Since these statuses are in all ways the same except in regard to eligibility to serve as president, it’s easy to confuse the two and read caselaw as pertaining to both when it really might only pertain to citizenship by operation of law.