An Original Taxonomy of "Natural Born Citizen" theories.

Free Republic ^ | 1/1/2009 | Jack Black

[Jack Black]

One of the confusing issues around the Obama "Natural Born" citizenship issue is that while many people feel that O is not eligible they do not agree, at all, on the reasons for this.

Many of these differences are based on different interpretations of the term "Natural Born Citizen", the qualifier in the US Constitution that Obama must meet.

To help clarify what we mean I have created a taxonomy of definitions based on the more than 50 articles I have read on this, as well as some basic logic.

Many of these have strong supporters here on Free Republic, and some have strong detractors. In the taxonomy section I have tried to present these in a logical order, with all possible cases presented. In the taxonomy section I have limited comments to only relevant court cases and how it effects Obama, without going into my particular views on the merits of the argument.

I'm hoping that this might prove useful to others, as well as for discussion purposes.

TAXONOMY

NB1:"Natural Born" means child was a citizen at time of birth and father did not hold foreign citizenship (regardless of mothers citizenship) at the time of birth AND person born on US Soil.

Apparently rejected by SCOTUS already.

Obama would not qualify under this case due to fathers citizenship regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.

NB2: "Natural Born" means child was a citizen at birth AND father did not hold foreign citizenship at time of birth, regardless of birth location.

Obama would not qualify under this due to his fathers British citizenship.

NB3: "Natual Born" means child was a citizen at birth and both father and mother were citizens AND person born on US soil.

Tenatively floated by liberals as a definition that might have denied McCain the Presidency, him failing the third test of "born on US soil."

Obama would not qualify due to his fathers citizenship, regardless of birth location.

NB4: "Natural Born" means means child was a citizen at birth AND BOTH father and mother were citizens regardless of birth location.

Definition preferred by activists at Restore the Republic

NB5:"Natural Born" means child was a citizen at birth because EITHER father or mother were citizens AND child was born in USA.

Obama qualifies under this one if Born in Hawaii. This one is used by Obama supporters are the "obvious" answer but doesn't seem to have much support in law. It's what those who haven't looked into it think the law SHOULD say.

NB6: "Natural Born means EITHER father or mother were citizens regardless of birth location.

Obama qualifies under this one even if born in Kenya.

NB7: "Natural Born means the child was a citizen at birth because EITHER the father or the mother were citizens, AND that parent met the legal requirements for imparting citizenship at the time of birth IF child was born outside US Territory.

This is the definition used by Berg in his lawsuit, which is apparently still under discussion at the SC.

Obama fails this if born in Kenya, but if born in Hawaii he is eligible.

NB8:"Natural Born" means the child was a citizen at birth by virtue of birth on US Soil, regardless of the status of their parents.

This is the "soil absolutist" argument. This says "as long as citizen was born on US Soil nothing else matters". This interpretation seems to be the most popular in the media, and will eventually allow anchor babies to run for POTUS.

It is the test commonly used in most other areas of law to determine citizenship. 14th Amendment often sighted in support of this interpretation.

Frequently used by Obama supporters as the ultimate "proof". eg: "he was born in Hawaii, it doesn't matter where his father was from". Detested by opponents of citizenship for "anchor babies", but still the law.

Obama qualifies under this one regardless of any questions about his parents citizenship IF as he claims he was born in Hawaii. If he wasn't then this doesn't help him.

Here it is in table form:

	Father Key	Both Parents Key	Either Parent Key	US Soil Required?	2 or 3 Cit. Types	O Born in USA, eligible?	O Born in Kenya, eligible?
NB1	YES			YES	3	NO	NO
NB2	YES			NO	3	NO	NO
NB3		YES		YES	3	NO	NO
NB4		YES		NO	3	NO	NO
NB5			YES	YES	3	YES	NO
NB6			YES	NO	2	YES	YES
NB7			YES, limited*	NO	2	YES	NO
NB8				YES	2	YES	NO

Notes:

NB 7 acknowledges that there were some circumstances where citizenship ITSELF (not "Natural Born", just of any type) is not automatically imparted to the child if born abroad when only one parent is a citizen. Berg takes this view.

Two or Three types of citizenship? test explained.

Many of these definitions claim, implicitly and explicitly, that there are three types of citizens. These are: "Natural Born" "Naturalized" and what some have taken to calling "Native Born".

According to the "three type" advocates "Native Born" citizens are citizens by virtue of birth but lack some crucial requirement (birth on US soil) or have some crucial disqualification (father a non-citizen) that does not allow them to run for POTUS.

One practical problem for any of the "Three Type" advocates is that there are no other places in US Law where this distinction is made. Thus, in a real sense, advocates of these "Natural Born" definitions are asking POTUS to define this for the first time in the context of the Obama election. This seems unlikely from a pragmatic point of view.

The "Two Types" advocates have an easier time fitting in with existing law, and most people's common understanding of the law.

They claim there are only TWO types of citizens recognized in law: Natural Born and Naturalized.

For advocates of this position the term "Natural Born" and "Native Born" are equivalent and identical.

This position has a simple test for determining "Natural Born" status: was the person a citizen at birth? If the answer to this is "Yes" then that person is "Natural Born" and eligible to run for POTUS.

This definition fits in with most peoples understanding of their citizenship. Everyone in the USA knows they are either: 1) a born citizen 2) a naturalized citizen or 3) not a citizen. Few people have thought about the "Three Types" classifications, or even heard of it before this lawsuit.

NB7 advocates claim that Obama is ineligible for POTUS because he is NOT A CITIZEN (unless he has secretly been naturalized and is hiding that fact.)

It is both the most disturbing claim (he's not even a CITIZEN!!!) and the most understandable (not requiring reference to obscure 18th century books defining "natural born" or acceptance of three classes of citizenship.

[Jack Black]

Hope this helps us clarify our positions and leads to more thoughtful discussions.

[the_Watchman]

I’m not a lawyer [I don’t even play one on TV.], but this looks like a good synopsis to me. Good work!

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

RE: NB3 — I thought that McCain qualified by dint of being born on a U.S. military base (bases being considered U.S. soil, as are embassies).

[billorites]

"I believe Senator Obama to be three-fifths eligible to serve as President..."

[kittykat77]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! One quick question: Should "POTUS" here read "SCOTUS"?

One practical problem for any of the "Three Type" advocates is that there are no other places in US Law where this distinction is made. Thus, in a real sense, advocates of these "Natural Born" definitions are asking POTUS to define this for the first time in the context of the Obama election. This seems unlikely from a pragmatic point of view.

[Jack Black]

RE: NB3 — I thought that McCain qualified by dint of being born on a U.S. military base (bases being considered U.S. soil, as are embassies). Some interpreted it that way, others said only a state counts. This was also an issue when Goldwater ran in 1964, Arizona was a territory when he was born, not a state.

Others disputed that McCain was born on a base, saying the hospital was in the CZ, but not on the base. Others felt like the entire Canal Zone, in the period in question would qualify as US Territory.

As he didn't win we never had to argue about it too much.

[Jack Black]

YES! Thanks!! Good catch.

[Red_Devil 232]

Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

U.S. Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs

Documentation of United States Citizens Born Abroad Who Acquire Citizenship At Birth

The birth of a child abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s) should be reported as soon as possible to the nearest American consular office for the purpose of establishing an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship at birth. The official record is in the form of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America. This document, referred to as the Consular Report of Birth or FS-240, is considered a basic United States citizenship document. An original FS-240 is furnished to the parent(s) at the time the registration is approved.

REPORTING THE BIRTH

A Consular Report of Birth can be prepared only at an American consular office overseas while the child is under the age of 18. Usually, in order to establish the child’s citizenship under the appropriate provisions of U.S. law, the following documents must be submitted:

(1) an official record of the child’s foreign birth;
(2) evidence of the parent(s)’ U.S. citizenship (e.g., a certified birth certificate, current U.S. passport, or Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship);
(3) evidence of the parents’ marriage, if applicable; and
(4) affidavits of parent(s)’ residence and physical presence in the United States.

In certain cases, it may be necessary to submit additional documents, including affidavits of paternity and support, divorce decrees from prior marriages, or medical reports of blood compatibility. All evidentiary documents should be certified as true copies of the originals by the registrar of the office wherein each document was issued. A service fee of $65 is prescribed under the provisions of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 22.1, item 9, for a Consular Report of Birth.

[combat_boots]

ATTABOY

Boots

[combat_boots]

ping

[Jack Black]

Please excuse this slight misuse of the CWII ping list. As the saying goes "Membership has it's advantages".

Basically I spent way too much time on this and so am shamelessly plugging it.

I thought it might add some clarity to the ongoing debates discussions. I think it is clear that many of us have different opinions on these things.

[Calpernia]

New YouTube Video, watch and pass to your lists: Exactly What is a Natural Born Citizen?

Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations was key in framing the United States as the world's first constitutional republic. Click here to read more.

[Calpernia]

bump dat

[Squantos]

BOGUS POTUS Alert !!

Good Job Jack...... :o)

Even if he’s sworn in he’ll always be just a Precedent vs a President to me .

Stay safe !

[Jack Black]

A few questions about this:

1) Do the founders sight this in The Federalist Papers or The Anti-Federalist Papers. I don’t recall hearing about it.

2)It seems to give strength to both NB1 (father citizenship is key, born on US soil required) and NB3 (both parents citizenship required, born on US soil) which position are you advancing? Why?

It seems to be NB3. The case that the SC declined to hear was based on the NB1 argument. Given that NB3 is even a stricter interpretation I rate chances that SC will agree to hear such a challenge as ‘vanishingly low’.

3)Are you aware of this text being sighted in any other Supreme Court rulings?

4)Why do you feel that this one fairly obscure reference trumps all other interpretations?

[Calpernia]

>>>Do the founders sight this in The Federalist Papers or The Anti-Federalist Papers.

The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel was found in the Federalists papers.

>>>both parents citizenship required, born on US soil

I am advancing both parents because that is how the Constitution was intended and my links states why.

>>>Are you aware of this text being sighted in any other Supreme Court rulings?

Yes. Google searches on Law of Nations pulls many court cases. Supreme too.

>>>Why do you feel that this one fairly obscure reference trumps all other interpretations?

I don’t feel it is obscure. If you read my link about the Law of Nations, I wrote why. I also contributed to the video.

[arthurus]

If true diligence had been shown we would not have been saddled with either of those two phonies.

[Jet Jaguar]

BTTT

[Red_Devil 232]

I agree! Closed primaries would have eliminated one for sure!

[353FMG]

What would happen if Obama gets sworn in, and a year later there is proof beyond a doubt that he is constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS?

I can’t believe that I even ask that question. In any normal situation this should never have been brought up. What is so incredible is that no one in government is even curious about Obama’s identity.

To me it is proof that government is no longer on the side of the American people and that it has taken a path incompatible with their welfare.