This article is arguing for a third class of citizenship: native born but not natural born.
it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
So maybe you can explain why the court made a point of emphasizing that it is sufficent to base its argument on ONE class of citizens specifically defined as having citizen parents. Why did the court do that??
Wrong ... but expected.
You are naturalized automatically if born in the U.S. You are not Natural born automatically! Still 2 forms of citizenship! One that can be President and one that can not!
That's precisely what a 14th Amendment citizen is.
A "citizen" because they are born here...but not necessarily a "natural born Citizen" because they might also have allegience owed to another country by way of inheriting their parent(s) foreign citizenship.
You're an idiot. This article is arguing for no such thing, NOR are those two "classes" of citizenship."
The article is brilliantly clear. You are trying to fog it up with stupid lies.
Go away, shill.
There are three classes of citizenship.
There are three classes of citizenship. Natural Born Citizen, Citizen (either through Naturalization, or by statute such as the 14th Amendment (Born here, or one citizen parent), and Alien.
The first can run for POTUS, the second and third cannot. The third has no right to any of the benefits of American citizenship including our system of justice, welfare, etc.
Rubio is a “citizen” rather than a “natural born citizen”, because his parents were not citizens at his birth. This is probably true of Jindal also. There is also the question of whether Romney's parents were citizens of Mexico at his birth, or US citizens.
Obama is not a natural born citizen, since his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth.
Under the law at the time his mother could not impart citizenship on him, because she was a minor. Remember the age of majority in 1961 was 21 years of age (she had not lived the require number of years to impart citizenship). It's been a while since anyone brought that fact up on a thread. Only his father, a British citizen could impart citizenship.
If proved that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, he then is a “citizen”, but not a “natural born citizen”. Especially since the marriage of his parents was in fact not legal, since his father already had a wife in Kenya.
.
There may well be more than three classes of citizenship.
Natural Born is not necessarily born in country. Natural Born citizenship arises out of the citizenship of the parents, and nowhere is there any requirement that the Natural Born citizen has to have been born in the country.
It is based on the conditions of birth, not the location of birth. A Natural Born citizen is one that is born a citizen due to his parents allegiance and citizenship, wherever that birth may take place.