Replies

(a) Automatic naturalization at birth. This status is attained upon birth by operation of law.

Naturalization at birth? That's the first I've heard of that notion. Is there law or case law on it?

I had thought that the word naturalization was coined to denote the process of an existing non-citizen becoming a citizen, as opposed to being born a citizen.

Is Governor Jindal a natural born citizen? Or is he naturalized? Can he be president? His mother arrived in this country four months pregnant, and his Indian grad student parents (I'm 99% certain) were not yet naturalized when he was born in Louisiana. Is he your category (1) or (1a)? Is he natural born or naturalized? Does his parents having subsequently become naturalized citizens retroactively make him natural born?

“Automatic naturalization at birth” is a phrase I coined because of the confusion engendered by the two different statuses that are attained upon birth.

The first is natural born citizenship, which is attained upon birth because of the citizenship of one’s parents. This is by operation of nature, not by operation of any law. Meaning: it just is.

The second is citizenship obtained at birth based on one’s birthplace (within the U.S.). This is by operation of law. IOW, the only reason children born in the U.S. to non-Americans are Americans is the fact that U.S. law says so. (The law could have easily said otherwise, or carved out various exceptions.)

Since this second type of citizenship-—even though it also is attained upon birth-—is by operation of law, not by operation of nature, it is the same process as what we popularly understand “naturalization” to be: the granting of citizenship because certain legal requirements were met (here, birthplace in the U.S.). It can be called “automatic” because citizenship is granted without the need for any application or approval; it is granted by law at the time of birth based solely on the place of birth.

I coined the term “automatic naturalization at birth” to distinguish this grant of citizenship by operation of law from the right of citizenship that inheres in descent.

Hope that’s not even more confusing.

As for Jindal, I gave my thoughts, fwiw, on that in another post as well. Under the understanding I (and others) are advocating now, with the facts you state, Jindal would not be a “natural born citizen.”

OTOH, your post gave rise to a twist. Here’s the only argument I could see in a Jindal-type situation. Of course, it’s very stretchy, but I’ll throw it out here all the same.

Let’s say we’re correct on what a natural born citizen is: a person born a citizen because his parents were citizens.

However, let’s put that together with the requirement that a person need be eligible for president BY THE TIME he takes office.

Then let’s make the argument that, since Jindal was a citizen AT birth (he was “automatically naturalized” based on the fact he was born in the U.S.), and since his parents were naturalized and were citizens by the time (hypothetically) he took office as President, as a matter of law, but not fact, he has the “same” legal status as a “natural born citizen.”

This would be similar to various legal fictions created in the area of adoptions, where the adopted child’s new legal identity extends back to the time of his birth, regardless that it was not created until some time (often a long time) after his birth.

Good enough? Don’t know. Just thinking out loud-—hope that’s not too constitution-geeky.

Regardless, those are the types of follow-on questions that might arise if we ever get the SCOTUS to tell us in the first place what, exactly, is a “natural born citizen”. And, since Obama’s father was NEVER an American, this type of sparring would not come up now.