Replies

In the Wong Kim Ark case, the court found Mr. Ark (who was born in country, to two permanently domiciled parents) to be a "citizen." They did not find him to be a "natural born citizen."

The 14th Amendment says who may be a "citizen." It say's nothing about who may be a "natural born citizen."

In fact, the father of the 14th Amendment clearly knew the difference:

John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment!

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War.

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No Congressman offered up an opposing view of who a "natural born citizen" was. They all knew exactly what it meant. Born in the territory of the U.S. to citizen parentS (i.e. that don't owe allegiance to a foreign country).

Barry, as you know, was born to a foreign father. Barry inherited his foreign fathers' foreign citizenship...by birthright. The state department discusses the issues/problems with dual nationals.

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:
(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

"...Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there."
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

The framers would never have considered someone with multiple allegiances owed from birth, to be a natural born citizen.