Hello PJ,
My response is to all of your posts. You are someone who really gets it regarding the nbC requirement. Kudos to you for that!
I used to argue the meaning nbC citing some of the documents that you have cited (and that is always valuable, especially in a legal setting), but I have come to realize that most people don’t respond well to a wall of text and that the naysayers use the details and minutia to waylay and wear down a discussion, so I now try to concentrate on “words mean things” and lead the ignorant and enemies of the Constitution to concentrate on the meaning, purpose and added value of the word “natural” to the phrase “born citizen.”
Natural means by nature, not by man or man’s law, and its value is to exclude foreign intrigue or influence from the executive (but you obviously know that). I try to get the ignorant to explain why “natural” was added to the phrase and what purpose does it serve? The naysayer may come up with horribly convoluted reasons, but Occam’s razor and common sense lead to only to the Founders’ understanding.
I wish the Founders had written the requirement to be “born and raised free of all foreign citizenships and allegiances” (obviously that was their intent). In fact, Vattel’s definition may have been used because it was well known at the time and was an easy “bright line” definition.
Times have changed and global travel is easy and commonplace, so being born somewhere does not mean being raised there, weakening Jus soli. Also, many modern nations allow dual citizenship and even our own naturalization process was watered down by aka obama to no longer require renunciation of all foreign citizenships (may be wrong about this), so there now is a new avenue for citizens of naturalized parents to be born with dangling allegiances (the founders must be spinning in their graves).
The bright line nbC requirement excludes citizens born at high seas or born to USA tourists briefly abroad in countries that make no Jus soli claim (thus no dangling allegiances), so in this way it is slightly unnecessarily restrictive compared to the allegiance at birth test, but I suppose this category was considered to be tiny enough to be sacrificed for expediency.
Also, the nbC requirement lets through children of naturalized citizens who still retain alien citizenship (of course, the Founders could not have anticipated this).
I am interested in your thoughts on these matters.
First, thank you for the kind words.
Second, I can't help the "wall of text." Some things just need explaining. I see the Constitution as a tapestry, full of threads woven throughout it. Pull on one thread, and another begins to fall out. The "natural born" clause is one of those threads. Not only does one need to set it against the other text (why is it here and not there, why was citizen used elsewhere but not here, etc.), but it has to be shown against independent text found in other contemporary writings that survived the march of time.
Third, I wrote this little bit about non-citizen births back in 2018:
The people of any nation have the right to choose who can join their nation. If they do not have the right to control their own citizenry, then they are at risk of invasion from outside.There are two ways to join the nation: be the Posterity of its citizens, or become naturalized by laws passed by the representatives of the people in Congress.
People who are not citizens of this country who birth children in this country take away the right of the citizens of this country to control who may become it's citizens. It is an invasion from within by foreigners to take over the country without the consent of its native citizens.
I still believe this to be true. Allowing the children of non-citizens to become citizens by accident of birth here undermines a nation's own right to control its culture. If a parent is here on a permanent-resident visa, the childd inherits that status. If the parent is here on a tourist visa, the child is a tourist, too.
Here is another one from 2018 on birthright citizenship:
Suppose that a vacationing couple, say from France, seeks refuge in the French embassy after accidentally killing someone in their rented car. While inside the French embassy, they are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. No natural born American citizen can do this.If a person can seek refuge here in the USA in another country's embassy or consulate where they are not subject to our jurisdiction, then they are not fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Now suppose this French couple had a baby inside the United States. Is this baby entitled to the protection of the French embassy, just like its parents?
Is there any place inside the United States where you or I can avoid the jurisdiction of the United States? Why should other "citizens" (like this French baby) be afforded this right? Why should "birthright" citizens have more protections against United States jurisdiction than natural born citizens?
Why would the Constitution create a class of citizen with more protections than other citizens?
My answer is that it doesn't. That baby was not intended to be a citizen, and certainly not a natural born citizen.
Finally, I was pondering the "McCain" case and wondering how to craft language that might exempt military or diplomat parents from having their children's citizenship questioned. I finally settled on this suggestion for a Constitutional amendment:
We need an amendment that says:
- A child born within the United States of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
- A child born outside the United States of two citizen parents, where at least one parent was resident within the United States in the previous 10 years is a natural born citizen.
- A child born outside the United States of two citizen parents, where neither parent was resident within the United States during the previous 10 years, must naturalize the child within the first 10 years of the child's life.
- A child born of only one citizen parent must naturalize the child within the first 10 years of the child's life, regardless of birth location.
- A child born inside the United States of two non-citizen parents is not a citizen of the United States. Citizenry descends to the child based on relevant laws governing the parents of the child.
- A child found within the United States of unknown parentage may become naturalized once the child reaches the age of 18. If adopted by a citizen parent, the child may become naturalized upon adoption.
I hope this satisfies your request for thoughts.
-PJ