The best definition of natural born I've seen

The Federalist Blog ^ | November 18, 2008 | P.A. Madison

[The Watcher]

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.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

That quote seems to be suggesting that the child of a foreign citizen is not a citizen at all. This is a position that has been consistently rejected for over 100 years - if the framers of the fourteenth amendment wanted citizenship to attach only to children of people "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof," they would have said that; they didn't. The word "complete" appears only in this one senator's interpretation of the amendment, not in the amendment itself.

Also, that is a quote that deals with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the Fourteenth amendment. It says nothing about the interpretation of the phrase "natural born citizen" in Article 2. Unless, again, you are arguing that the children of non-citizens are not citizens, in which case you'd be ignoring 100+ years of consistent caselaw & statutes.

[unspun]

Natural Born Citizen means anyone who receives citizenship by birth, and not through a naturalization process

I concur, Natural born is the opposite of Naturalized. There are citizens and non-citizens. Of the citizens, you are either natural born or naturalized. This is not rocket science people.

Well, I'll be interested in what John Jay did say (not much, Hamilton) but you will find in this article, apparent sources and resources relevant to the framers, which require both components (birth in state and birth by citizen father).

They include John A. Bingham (framer of 14th Amendment), St. George Tucker (foremost commentary on Blackstone vis a vis U.S. Law) and Emmerich de Vatel (The Law of Nations).

The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge

Zarodinu why don't you do us the favor of excerpting and posting what you deem most relevant from John Jay? And yes, welcome to FR.

[Red Steel]

Pryor makes the argument that naturalized citizens are actually natural born citizens and therefore eligible for the presidency. She’s probable a loon on the left.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

The U.S. does not recognize the concept of dual citizenship. You are either an American citizen, or you are not an American citizen. Whether you also hold citizenship in another country does not matter. In other words, your cousin's Mexican citizenship has no bearing on her U.S. citizenship. The U.S. government doesn't care that she is a Mexican citizen; the relevant question is not "which country(ies) is she a citizen of?" but rather, "is she a citizen of the United States?"

Look at it this way - if Britain enacted a law stating that any person who has at least one British grandparent is a British citizen, would that mean that the grandchild of a British citizen, born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents would not be a "natural born citizen"? After all, under British law, that child would be a British citizen.

The point, of course, is this: It is absurd (and in fact dangerous) to think that an American's citizenship - or eligibility to be President - can depend on the operation of foreign law. I do not want any foreign country to have any say, even incidentally, over who can or cannot be my President.

[unspun]

I believe my link (pg 888-889) show the founders did not share your view of natural born citizenship. Furthermore, there is evidence that at least one former US president (Chester Arthur) was born of one non-US citizen.

OK, I read those two pages. They say that they don't say.

I.e., they say that neither Jay's nor Hamilton's correspondence are specific about the matter of what exactly constitutes a "natural born citizen." And they say that correctly, because the excerpts this book lists are not definitive on the matter.

Therefore, one must look at the contempraneous sources that these founder and framer folk frequented -- and the documentation of others. That is what I have just given you. ;-)

Now, the significant point is that Jay sought to exclude foreign allegiances for the Commander in Chief, in requiring a "natural born citizen" -- something that Donofrio is explicit about in his suit.

[unspun]

The point, of course, is this: It is absurd (and in fact dangerous) to think that an American's citizenship - or eligibility to be President - can depend on the operation of foreign law. I do not want any foreign country to have any say, even incidentally, over who can or cannot be my President.

Hardly, when it comes to being born by a father who passes one's citizenship to the child. That competing allegiance is exactly and explicitly what the framers and founders sought to avoid.

You can cite ridiculous examples of someone in the PRC calling Sarah Palin a Citizen of China all night long, but that is hardly the same thing.

[Red Steel]

Here's what Jill Pryor concludes. Her "research" is dubious at best.

IV. CONCLUSION

If the eligibility of a presidential candidate born outside the territorial United States were challenged under the natural-born citizen clause today, the outcome, based on traditional methods of approaching the clause, would be unpredictable and unsatisfactory. This Note's approach removes the confusion caused by Supreme Court dicta asserting that there are only two classes of citizens, native-born and naturalized. As historical and textual analysis has shown, a citizen may be both "naturalized" and "natural born." Under the naturalized born approach, any person with a right to American citizenship under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.

[unspun]

"...naturalized born..."

LOL !!

[Conscience of a Conservative]

And what about my other point/question - is the child of a non-citizen, born in the U.S., a citizen at all?

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Hardly, when it comes to being born by a father who passes one's citizenship to the child. That competing allegiance is exactly and explicitly what the framers and founders sought to avoid.

Once again: Yes, they sought to avoid competing allegiances, but they did so by ensuring that the President was born a citizen of this country.

You have still yet to cite anything suggesting that there has ever been a third "type" of citizen.

[unspun]

And what about my other point/question - is the child of a non-citizen, born in the U.S., a citizen at all?

I believe it was customary at the founding, to allow the state the child was born in, to say so, or not. I've recently read that James Madison complained about that (he complained a lot, but I agree).

That is the "anchor baby" dilemma that remains a point of contention. Under current law, he's a Citizen. He, however was not a "natural born Citizen," to the framers, by all we know about them.

They used those two modifying words for good reason. They were our highly educated founders/framers and they were writing our Constitution, after all.

And why use extra words, anyway? The sheet of vellum is only so big.

[BP2]

The following reference is by Emer de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767). He was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He is most famous for his 1758 work, "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns." This work was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.

From p. 183 of "The Law of Nations":

NOTE the words "born", "parents" and "citizens".

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Now here's a copy of the famous letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention where he suggests the President be a natural born Citizen.

Notice how John Jay has Underlined the word "born". On the Constitutional drafts, he underlines born" in nearly all instances.

The following reference is by Emer de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767). He was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He is most famous for his 1758 work, "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns." This work was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.

From p. 183 of "The Law of Nations":

NOTE the words "born", "parents" and "citizens".

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Now here's a copy of the famous letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention where he suggests the President be a natural born Citizen.

Notice how John Jay has Underlined the word "born". On the Constitutional drafts, he underlines born" in nearly all instances.

[Hugin]

This is all very interesting, but SCOTUS will not overturn the results of an election. But suppose they did, what would happen? The electoral college would still meet. Would the Obama electors follow a supreme court ruling, or would they still elect Obama? If they did, would the court issue an injunction? What then? If the vote was declared invalid, does Joe Biden become president? Or does the whole thing got to the House, where Nancy Pelosi picks the next president? I can't imagine anything more damaging to the country; endless bickering, cynicism, charges of racism, not to mention the anger of the majority of voters at having their vote stolen from them. And in any case we would probably end up with someone as bad or worse than Obama.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Why use extra words? Simply to distinguish between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens.

[unspun]

It’s what they get the big bucks for.

[unspun]

Simply to distinguish between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens.

You mean words meant things to the framers?

Rush Limbaugh would be proud.

So... somebody should tell Rush Limbaugh....

[unspun]

You have still yet to cite anything suggesting that there has ever been a third "type" of citizen.

You have not read what I have cited. Read what BP2 posted, then read Tucker said -- and Bingham in the article which starts this thread.

They are both utterly clear: 1. born in the nation and, 2. born of an American citizen father.

[Lancey Howard]

I’m no lawyer but even I understood most of the arguments here.
Excellent!

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Except that all of those sources are, in context, discussing the notion of citizenship generally. To those writers, a person born of non-citizen parents was not a citizen at all. They were drawing a distinction between citizen and non-citizen, not between "natural born citizens" and "citizens simply born in the country." The writers you quoted still do not support the proposition that there is some sort of third type of citizenship - it's still simply "citizen" v. "non-citizen."

To the writers you quote, an individual who met your qualification (1), but not (2) would not be a citizen. This is a concept of citizenship that has been rejected in this country - via statute, case-law, and understanding of the Fourteenth amendment - for well over 100 years.

[BP2]

The definition for every president from 1837 to present:

(1) American Citizen + (1) American Citizen + Birth on US Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Barack Obama's Revisionist Definition:

(1) American Citizen + (1) Foreign Citizen + Birth on US Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Barney Frank's "We are the World" Definition [if his 2000 Bill had been approved]:

(1) Foreign Citizen + (1) Foreign Citizen + Birth on ANY Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN