Good thing, since Trumps mom was born in Scotland.
An anchor baby of two non-citizen parents is not a natural born citizen.
If a child is born in the US to two parents, both of whom are US citizens, then that child is said to be a natural born citizen (see Vattel). The purpose of this is to ensure that the candidate does not have divided loyalties between the US and the country of one or both parents.
Note that there is no requirement that the parents both be natural born themselves, only that they be US citizens at the time of birth.
Most liberals will say that the requirement is that someone be born in the US and they call that ‘native born’, which suffices for them. The question of loyalty is irrelevant for them, if it serves their agenda.
Every four years, the NBC knitting circles regroup to exchange the latest about candidates’ parents and various legal theories, but the reality is that no one born in the USA is getting kicked off a ballot. Has not happened. Is not going to happen. No court is going to go there.
You spend to much time cogitating on ridiculous things
There is a SCOTUS case involving a girl born in the US that defines NBC
That was not the common understanding according to Thomas Paine's writings in 1791. According to Paine, the opposite was true.
From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 - Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791:
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. We all know what a "foreigner" is, someone who is not a citizen/subject of the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. Foreigners and half-foreigners do not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of U.S. citizens born within the United States to be President.
It is true that case law has been intentionally weak in this area, but I contend that there is a provision in the Constitution.
The Preamble defines who is a natural-born citizen. People argue that the Preamble is not law, that it is only an expository on the intent of the Constitution. As such, it is still contains useful insights into the thinking of the Framers.
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of We the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.
Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?
How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?
That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.
If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation's posterity.
Natural-born citizens are the nation's "posterity" that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.
-PJ
The left is angling for a Soros/Schwab ticket in ‘24.
The 14th Amendment settles this argument with the qualifier “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Born-in-the-U.S. children of Ambassadors are not subject to American jurisdiction, and are not U.S. citizens.
“Legal scholars in the field of citizenship have asserted that this common understanding and legal meaning in England and in the American colonies was incorporated into the usage and intent of the term in the U.S. Constitution to include those who are citizens at birth.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790 defines a natural born citizen as one born of citizen parent. Americans have been taught that for centuries, and all of a sudden people pretend that it never existed.
Two points: As John Jay pointed out, Perpetually ascribed allegiance at birth was an aspect of subjectship under England’s monarchical constitution, as it was in the American colonies both before and after the American Revolution. But federal citizenship was based, as it had always been, upon the Lockean concept of CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, befitting a republican form of government.
Secondly, as John Bingham, the author of the 14 Amendment once observed, “The Citizenship Clause of the 14 Amendment is a naturalization clause, both at birth and afterward.” Naturalized citizenship is citizenship bestowed by the state
In summary, as John Jay pointed out, the purpose of the Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural-born citizen clause was to ensure our elected president, as the commander-in-chief of all the country’s armed forces, was loyal to the Constitution and to the Republic.
Sure there is. At least two SCOTUS rulings. 🙄
Lastly, I would point out that there is nothing natural about statutorily created citizenship, either at birth or after birth. As Michael Ramsey pointed out in his essay, “The Original Meaning of ‘Natural Born’: “In general in eighteenth-century legal language, ‘natural’ meant the opposite of provided by statute.” (natural rights, natural law, natural born)
I would also point out that in general, a general clause (i.e. Citizens of the United States at birth — 14th Amendment) can not govern a specific clause (i.e. No Person except a natural born Citizen — Art. II, I, Cl. 5) unless Congress has specifically stated via its constitutional authority that “all citizens at birth are natural born citizens” — which, in, and of itself, would be unconstitutional, as positive law cannot create natural law — the court MUST give each clause a separate legal effect.
Simply put: “While all natural born citizens are Citizens of the United States at birth, statutory Citizens of the United States at birth are not natural Citizens of the United States at birth but naturalized U.S. Citizens at birth.
It was a pretty big issue when they faked Obama’s birth certificate.
I'ts wha the law says.
You can't censor anything that doesn't exist.........
The Original Meaning of "Subject to the Jurisdiction" of the United States
This was settled when McCai was in the run.
Needs to be examined in light of what it meant when written by the Founders.
Citizen and Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen are different animals.
A natural born citizen is the Posterity of We the People.
-PJ
What did this mean as it regards "natural Born Citizen"?
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. " .....John Jay's letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787
Article II, Section 1 - No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Article 1, Section 3 - No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Note that there is no requirement that the representative be a natural-born citizen, just a citizen. Therefore, my conclusion is that the Founders feared the possibility of a president with divided allegiances because of their parent’s birthplace.
Both parents must be American Citizens for a candidate to qualify to seek the office of president.