“if that is the case, please explain why the founders included the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution instead of just ‘citizen’”
Because there are also naturalized citizens.
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884):
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
As discussed, natural born citizen is the American form of the well established legal term “natural born subject” used in English Common law.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
It is worth noting that the original draft of the Constitution allowed naturalized citizens to become President. The revision done in August tightened the requirement.
What we do know for certain is that Obama has publicly called Kenya his home country. His wife has publicly called Kenya his home country. He was born a dual citizen. He was an adult citizen of Kenya. He refuses to allow inspection of his birth records held by Hawaii, yet basis his eligibility on those records.
These are very unfortunate facts, and it wont get resolved here. However, We can all agree, Americans deserve much better - An honest an open president who calls America his home country while sending Americans to war in Africa. Not Kenya.
the point is not arguing whether or not a person born of foreign citizen parents is a citizen, but whether or not such a person would be ‘natural born’. this is the trick of the anti-birthers. they try to distract by clouding the issue, forcing citizenship and natural born citizen into the same discussion. obviously, natural born status is a sub group of citizenship, therefore there is no need to discuss whether or not someone is a citizen, that is a given assuming the person was born on US soil (extending to US held properties for military families serving outside CONUS at the behest of the government).
as per your link:
“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle”
this is correct for citizenship, currently, but not for natural born status. also note, “is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen”. this implies a natural born citizen would be different than a native born/naturalized citizen. how could it be different, if not by both parents being citizens at the time of birth?
and this would be as intended by the founders.
the intent of the founders was to insure no foreign loyalties in the highest office of the land. to this extent, they introduced the specific language into the Constitution.
Charles Pinckney’s statement in the U.S. Senate in 1800
—
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”
additionally:
—
“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))”
therefore it would be impossible for an individual, born of one or both non-citizen parents, to be natural born.
citizen, yes. natural born citizen, no.
it’s just not possible.