Replies

You really need to go back and read the essay in full. You do not even appear to understand what it is about.

Yinger is actually trying to make the case that foreign children of non-citizens should be considered "natural-born" if American citizens adopt them. The entire essay is dealing solely with the status of people born overseas. It never considered for a moment the definition of "natural born" as applied to those born on US soil. It merely remarks that those are "native born," and then argues that "natural born" equals native born plus the children of citizens born overseas.

1. It argues that "natural-born" is a more expansive category than "native born" because it includes (in his opinion) people not born on American soil.

2. When it comments that "the President should at least be the child of citizens," it is referring specifically to cases where the child was born overseas, not born on US soil.

You can't just rip a few paragraphs out of context and make a claim the entire essay does not support. And that is what you have done.

Yinger is actually trying to make the case that foreign children of non-citizens should be considered "natural-born"

I can read. YOU need to read it again. Miss this gem?

John Yinger is Professor of Economics and Public Administration at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, and the father of two adoptive children, one of whom, even when old enough, will not be eligible to be President.

It never considered for a moment the definition of "natural born" as applied to those born on US soil. It merely remarks that those are "native born," and then argues that "natural born" equals native born plus the children of citizens born overseas.

Wrong again.

Morse also emphasizes the difference between the terms "native-born" and "natural-born." The dictionary, which follows the English precedents, defines "native-born" as "belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein" and "natural-born" as "having a specified status or character by birth."(47) If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, Morse writes, "it would only have been necessary to say, 'no person, except a native-born citizen.'"(48)