During the oral aruments of Nguyen, the attorney says that the naturalized term in the Constitution can include natural born citizens as suggested by Rogers V Bellei.
What is clear from the oral argument is that the definition of Natural Born citizen is up in the air.
It is interesting to note that when a case came up again discussing Nguyen..no mention was made of natural born citizen- perhaps because it was now the topic across the country.
pay close attention to the “Well,..maybe...” of Scalia
Justice Breyer: Yes, I mean, their... their citizenship is conferred by statute, and they are citizens from birth, and there are probably tens of millions of them, and George Romney was one of them, and I had not thought that they were naturalized citizens.
I thought they were citizens who were citizens by virtue of their birth, and they’re citizens from birth, but you were saying they’re the same as naturalized.
Or maybe I misunderstood.
Ms Davis: Yes.
Your Honor, the wording of the Constitution is natural born citizens for purposes of being President or Vice President.
And what... I haven’t done the research myself.
What commentators say is that natural born is the equivalent of... includes, encompasses jus soli and jus sanguinis.
But that’s a different term than naturalized.
Justice Breyer: If that’s so, then those who... then those who are born abroad of an American parent are natural born citizens in your view?
Ms Davis: That’s correct.
Justice Breyer: Contrasted with naturalized citizens who would have been aliens who previously were aliens and would have become citizens by virtue of a naturalization law; is that right?
Ms Davis: Your Honor, I guess the question is whether the term naturalized in the Constitution also encompasses natural born citizens.
In Rogers versus Bellei suggested that it did.
Justice Breyer: Well, I... for present purposes what we’re interested in is what standard of review to apply, and whether the extremely deferential standard applies to these natural born citizens.
Ms Davis: I think it’s... I think it’s totally clear that jus sanguinis citizenship has a different history than naturalized citizenship and has traditionally by this Court as well as by Congress been treated differently.
Justice Scalia: But has not been called natural born citizenship?
I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
Ms Davis: Yes, by the same token...
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
Ms Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
Also note..from that exchange...born on US soil might be enough for Scalia.
Actually, the Supreme Court did a pretty good job defining NBC in the WKA case:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
It is also clear from multiple Supreme Court cases that a naturalized citizen is NOT a NBC.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,
and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
“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.”
“”We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”