Replies

I knew I'd read up on this somewhere...

“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”
It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens. But Bridgham also states that while these children are “native born” citizens, they are not “natural born” citizens and therefore cannot be President.

Snip...And in 1916, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long, wrote the following in the Chicago Legal News:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”
Snip...The question we are raising is not something made up to deal with Obama alone. As I have stressed many times throughout the history of this blog, those who are “native born” are not necessarily “natural born”.

So thanks for the brain freeze. I still stand by my statement with one correction...
So as I understand it I'm a natural born citizen. Obama is a native born citizen (due to the nature of his Mother's citizenship location of birth) with dual citizenship because of his purported Father's citizenship.

philman_36 wrote:

Snip...And in 1916, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long, wrote the following in the Chicago Legal News:
“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but [...]

And in that same essay Breck Long argued:

Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.

Barack Obama, like all of us who still draw breath, was born after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether his eligibility would have been questionable as late as 1868, or even 1898 when U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was decided, is not the issue. In our time, there has been one saying that to be eligible for the presidency, native-born citizens also have to be born of two parents who are citizens. That is, not until 2008 when a certain faction desperately wanted to deny that the particular individual could be president.