The Social Security Administration lists three “classes” of citizenship on its paperwork: Citizen born in the U.S.; Citizen born outside the U.S.; Naturalized citizen.
That would imply that there is a difference between the first two. Granted, we cannot know what at first glance. I can’t remember right now if it was regarding military or embassy personnel but a government agency published documentation that states that if you are born outside the U.S. during your parents’ deployment you are a citizen but may or may not be a natural born citizen. (I’m paraphrasing heavily so forgive the lack of quoted material. You know I’m good for it. I’ll provide it shortly.)
So clearly at least two government agencies recognize that there is no clear distinction whether or not a citizen born outside the U.S. is also natural born. A Supreme Court ruling is needed.
I don’t believe that we can say that the SCOTUS doesn’t see the need for a ruling based solely on their refusal to grant cert. in the eligibility cases. Here’s why. The cases were dismissed for lack of standing in the 1ower courts. To grant cert. would also grant standing. Since precedent plays a big role in our courts, the SCOTUS would in effect be setting a new precedent with regard to standing. That would open Pandora’s box. The courts have been careful to strictly ahere to the rules of standing. Agree or disagree with me about those two points?
Please check out Leo Donofrio’s blog regarding native born versus natural born. I believe they are the same, but I could be “misremembering.”
A pleasure, as always, N-S.
I told you I was good for it. Look up thread. See the foreign affairs manual in the section of the primer regarding statutory versus Constitutional natural born citizen.
So if one can be a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen and there is no requirement to be naturalized, then doesn’t that inherently create three classes of citizenship? Sort of like limbo? We don’t know where they belong. A Supreme Court ruling is needed.
And where does it do that? Not on the SS-5 form used to apply for a Social Security number or to change citizenship status. So where does it make this distinction?
You know I’m good for it. I’ll provide it shortly.
And I look forward to seeing it.
So clearly at least two government agencies recognize that there is no clear distinction whether or not a citizen born outside the U.S. is also natural born. A Supreme Court ruling is needed.
The Social Security Administration would be one. Which is number two?
Please check out Leo Donofrio’s blog regarding native born versus natural born. I believe they are the same, but I could be “misremembering.”
Both Berg and Donofrio have raised the natural born citizenship question. However, Donofrion concedes Obama's birth in Hawaii and is raising the question of how natural born citizen is defined. I have read a lot of what he has to say, but I'm not convinced he's correct.