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]

Pryor wasn’t my source. Seems like she’s a bit “out there” (something I did not know earlier, until I read her piece), but she does have some decent-looking primary source materials in her articles/footnotes. I wouldn’t trust a damn thing she says, in other words, but her paper may be a good jumping-off-point for further research.

[panthermom]

My point is when interpreting the law, they skipped over the alien part.

[panthermom]

The framers did not have a problem with immigrants, they were all immigrants, they did want allegiance. They did not want a free for all like it has become.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

I understand the importance of allegiance within the concept of citizenship (although, it should be noted that individuals who are born citizens are not required to say any oath of allegiance). I’m simply stating that a child born in the U.S., regardless of parentage, is (by law and by the 14th Amendment) a citizen of the United States - though we fought against the British, in part to free ourselves from their concept of natural-law subjects-by-birth, we do, nonetheless, retain a form of birthright citizenship through the 14th Amendment.

[panthermom]

You are right, except it can be interpreted that your birthright citizenship was dependent on your parents allegiance to this country.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

And my point is that the "alien part" does not exist within the Amendment itself. Perhaps it should, and perhaps the amendment should be interpreted in such a way as to exclude aliens, but that's not the current state of the law. I've really said little regarding how we should be interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment with regards to immigrants - I've focused more on how we (or, rather, the courts) do interpret the Amendment.

[panthermom]

Actually, the 14th Amendment should be revisited with regard to illegal immigration.

[panthermom]

Article 1 does not say anything about Ambassadors yet, the Supreme Court picked that one sentence out of what Sen. Jacob Howard said and ignored the rest. How can you do that?

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Ahh, well, that's a whole other thread, and I could go on for hours (suffice it to say that I believe the 14th Amendment should be revisited with regard to a lot of issues - it's really been the libs' biggest tool to enact their agenda in the courts).

Right now, though, I've gotta go. I've enjoyed the discussion/debate, everyone (really, I have). I guess we could learn today what the Court is planning to do with this Donofrio case?

[Conscience of a Conservative]

The question is not simply what Sen. Howard said - his statement is informative, but not necessarily determinative (one could probably find statements made by other "framers" of the amendment that say the exact opposite - that's just how legislative debate works, and that's why Justices Scalia and Thomas often caution against over-reliance on legislative history). Rather, the question is whether, under the language of the amendment, a particular child is covered; the amendment itself does not use Sen. Howard's language, but rather uses the broader language of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Since, as I noted earlier, Ambassadors are the clearest example of people who are not subject to the jurisdiction, it is clear that children of Ambassadors are not covered under the 14th Amendment; with other immigrants/aliens/residents, the analysis is not nearly as clear.

OK, really going now, but I'll try to check in on the thread throughout the day.

[Uncle Chip]

This is the best commentary I have read, bar none, on what is the meaning of natural-born, and just as importantly, what is NOT.

Too bad the United States Senate disagrees with you declaring that both location on American territory and birth to two American citizens is necessary for "natural born citizen" in SR 511:

"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

However, I'm sure that the Senate is a bit embarrassed for not requiring candidate John McCain to produce his original birth certificate before the Resolution was adopted.

Let's hope that they all learned their lesson and don't face that same embarrassment with Obama -- You know, Hope and Change.

[Uncle Chip]

What sources did the Senate use for its SR 511 when it determined that McCain's "natural born citizen" status depended upon birth to two American citizens???

[Uncle Chip]

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Yeh but what were the requirements back in 1961 when Obama was born of one foreign citizen in never-neverland???

[Grampa Dave]

zarodinu
Since Nov 27, 2008

So is this troll getting paid by each word or each reply?

[Sloth]

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... I do not want any foreign country to have any say, even incidentally, over who can or cannot be my President.

You are correct, of course, and it sad that so many Freepers are frantically grasping at straws to disqualify Obama.

[Frantzie]

Good find.

[Eastbound]

" '. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof."

"Complete" simplifies a very complex issue. Thanks.

[lilylangtree]

Short and concise. Very good!

[MHGinTN]

It's nice to come across someone so much more intelligent and worldly than the founders of America. You assert the opposite of what the framers sought to accomplish and want us to shut up and step aside for your little squirrel messiah ... and your spittle is an insult to what the framers sought: "You are either an American citizen, or you are not an American citizen. Whether you also hold citizenship in another country does not matter." 'conscience of a conservative What absolute sh!t in a bucket!

You agitprops are certainly bold with your deceits and assertions. At least you don't suffer from 'divided loyalties' to the Constitution.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

I never claimed to be "much more intelligent and worldly than the founders of America" - that is an absurd suggestion. My comments on dual citizenship were not "agitprop," but rather an accurate statement of the law regarding dual citizenship. United States law does not - I repeat, does not - explicitly recognize the concept of dual citizenship. A U.S. citizen may be born as a citizen of another country as well, or may become a citizen of another country, without any effect on their U.S. citizenship. The only time a U.S. citizen's foreign citizenship status has any effect on their U.S. citizenship is if they apply for foreign citizenship with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

From the State Department webpage:

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Before you go accusing me of "agitprop" and of being against the Constitution, maybe you should look and see if the comments to which you are responding are accurate. If my comment was "agitprop," wouldn't that make the State department's remarks "agitprop" as well.