This would be partly correct. I would say that it has been partly defined legally. Here are the opinions I have heard on the matter:
1. Born in the US, you are automatically a US citizen, except in very rare cases. IE, a child to diplomats and borne on embassy grounds.That's correct. Virtually everyone born in the United States is, legally speaking, a natural born citizen.
The major legal case that established this was US v. Wong Kim Ark (Supreme Court, 1898).
Wong was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not US citizens and completely ineligible ever to become US citizens. His parents returned to China. He made two trips to China, the first time being admitted back into the US without incident on the grounds that he was a citizen. The second time, the customs and immigration authorities denied him re-entry, claiming that since he was Chinese he was not a US citizen in spite of the fact that he had been born in San Francisco.
Wong took his case through our legal system, and it reached the Supreme Court which declared that he was a citizen.
In the final declaration, since that's the question they were asked ("Is Wong a citizen?") that's what they said: "Wong is a citizen."
The entire RATIONALE of the case, which is legally binding precedent on a level equal with the final declaration, had to do with who is, and who is not, a NATURAL BORN citizen.
The implications of this natural born citizenship for Presidential eligibility were also discussed in the case, including by the dissent (a lone 2 Justices), who pointed out in the dissent that this meant that US-born Chinermen and members of other "inferior" races are eligible to the Presidency.
So in spite of the claim of birthers, who refuse to recognize the entire rationale of the Wong case as the precedent it is, the case established a crystal clear precedent.
If you were born in the United States to non-citizen, non-diplomat parents who were residing here, then you're a natural born citizen.
The children-of-diplomats exception is one that goes back for many centuries in US, colonial and (originally) English law.
The historical exceptions were: children of diplomats, children of foreign royalty, and children of invading armies.
So if Prince William and Kate were to come over to the United States and have their royal baby born in a hospital in New York City, according to the historical exceptions, that baby would not be a natural born US citizen.
If diplomats of the UK or some other country have a baby here, that baby, historically, is considered to be born under the legal umbrella of that nation and not our own. So historically speaking, that baby would not be a natural born US citizen.
And if Russia were to invade and seize the city of Fairbanks, Alaska, and hold it for a couple of years, and members of that invading army were to have a child in Fairbanks, it would not be a US citizen.
Except that exception is so extremely rare historically that I'm not quite sure what it would really mean. I would think that it would only exclude the child of a member of a foreign invading army that that soldier had with a mother who was not a US citizen. Because if a child's mother is a US citizen, then the child is a US citizen as well.
A couple of issues weren't necessarily addressed by the Wong decision, because they weren't really a factor in those days: Children of illegal aliens, and birth tourism.
Legally, one could argue that illegal aliens are not submitting to our legal system and laws, and therefore their children are not natural born citizens. Our current practice is that such children born here ARE natural born citizens. But I don't know that necessarily has to be the case. Not that it really matters, however. There does not exist the will in Congress to pass a law excluding such children from citizenship, and probably never will.
Birth tourism is a small but real issue. Still, the Wong decision was based on a case of RESIDENT non-citizen parents. So there's probably some wiggle-room to exclude anchor babies as well. Again, IF there were the will to do it. Which I doubt.
2. Some say that both parent must be Americans at the time of the Child’s birth.
Very, VERY few people have ever made this claim throughout our history. The very few who have, were usually people with little or no authority who were strongly contradicted by the vast majority of scholars.
3. Some say that as long as you never had to be naturalized to become a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. I believe this is the case with Cruz.
That's really the bottom line.
Strictly speaking, the case of a Ted Cruz has not been judicially decided.
But historically, from the very beginning of our Republic, when push comes to shove, the "real" definition of natural born citizen has always pretty much been "born a citizen" or "citizen by birth."
There have always been only two categories: Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.
The first includes everyone who was born a citizen. The latter includes everyone who became a citizen after birth, through some process of naturalization.
It also seems very clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended for folks like Ted Cruz to be eligible to be President. The First Congress immediately passed a law declaring that the children born overseas to American parents were to be counted as natural born citizens. So it is clear that they intended those children to be eligible to the Presidency as well.
A later Congress changed the wording, dropping the words "natural born." But legally and historically speaking, my firm opinion is that that really doesn't matter. We could get into a lot of the details as to why, but this post is too long already.
I will briefly mention one of those details.
In 1834, James Bayard wrote "A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States."
In that exposition, he wrote very specifically and very clearly that it was NOT necessary to be born in the United States in order to be Constitutionally eligible to be President. It was only necessary to be born a citizen, or to be a “citizen by birth.”
That was an explicit declaration that people like Ted Cruz are eligible.
Bayard’s exposition was read and approved by none other than Chief Justice John Marshall, the “Great Chief Justice” who dominated the US Supreme Court for 35 years starting just 13 years after the Constitution was adopted. Marshall had one minor correction to make. Other than that, he said, he hadn't seen anything in the entire book he didn't agree with.
If anyone was in a position to know what the Founders meant by the term, it was Chief Justice Marshall. From his approving letter to Bayard, it’s clear that he read Bayard’s book. And he would not have missed such an important matter as who was eligible to be President.
So while the case of a person born a US citizen abroad has never yet reached the Supreme Court, there are some very strong legal, historical and common sense arguments that such people are equally eligible. I haven't been able to find a single major legal scholar who thinks that someone like Ted Cruz is not eligible.
Here's what I would expect if Ted Cruz runs for and is elected President.
I would expect that someone would file a court case challenging his eligibility.
And then I would expect that our court system would affirm his eligibility. It would probably be appealed up to the Supreme Court. Whether the Supreme Court would hear the appeal or just decline to hear it and let it stand, I'm not sure. My gut feeling is that they definitely would hear it if a lower court said he was ineligible, and they would probably hear it if the lower courts said he was eligible.
If we have a lawyer out there who can provide an opinion, I would love to hear it.
I am not a lawyer by training. But I do understand the legal principles involved. And I've thoroughly digested the history of the issue, including all of the major legal cases throughout history (which I've read), and looked very closely at all of the legal and historical precedent.
Thank you for that detailed explanation of laws concerning NBC. It would be really nice to have the matter addressed by the Supreme Court. As the foreign born population increases in the US, I expect this question to come up more frequently.
“1. Born in the US, you are automatically a US citizen, except in very rare cases. IE, a child to diplomats and borne on embassy grounds.That’s correct. Virtually everyone born in the United States is, legally speaking, a natural born citizen.”
No. Diplomats are in the U.S. by treaty to represent a non-U.S. country. Declaring a child of a diplomat a U.S. citizen violates the treaty between the two countries. Diplomats and their immediate family member have immunity from many U.S. laws in order to maintain their sovereignty.
However, the diplomat is entitled to obtain a birth certificate on behalf of their child to prove a live birth. Also, the diplomat is entitled to waive sovereign immunity and seek U.S. citizenship status on behalf of a child born in the U.S.
Someone threw up in the thread again.
Yuk. Verbal vomit.