In addition to being 35 years of age and residing in the United States for a minimum of 14 years, you are correct. This claim that 2 citizen parents are required to bestow natural born citizenship is nothing more than a fictional device created by birthers to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet. It is complete and utter nonsense.
Actually the confusion about the definition of what a "natural born citizen" is was caused by the fact that until about the 1920s and 1930s it was impossible to have two married parents of different citizens so the constitution doesn't really envision what to do with this situation. Up until the 1930s women had what is called "derivative citizenship" which means that they had whatever citizenship their father or husband(if they were married)held. Thus if they a woman was a natural born citizen and she married a Frenchman, she became a French citizen ipso facto with no act of government required, but if a French woman married an American man she automatically became an American woman too. If a child was illegitimate, the child inherited the citizenship of the father, if the father was unknown then the child became whatever their mother was. Under the old system, it was impossible to have married parents of different citizenship. Consequently, almost everyone was a natural born citizen. The concept of dual citizenship was considered an irrational and impossible and you used to lose your US citizenship if you voluntary accepted another nations citizenship until 1967 when SCOTUS undermined US sovereignty by ruling that dual citizenship was possible in the case Afroyim v. Rusk.
As far as the interpretation of the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" goes now, we really are in uncharted legal territory.
Are your eyes still blue? lololol
Not entirely true. A person born in the United States is a citizen at birth - but not necessarily a natural born citizen. It all depends on whether another nation can lay claim to him.
As stated in a lot of my posts, natural born status relies on two [2] facctors - place of birth AND allegiance.
If a child is born of alien parents [specifically the father] AND no nation lays another claim to his citizenship, he is natural born.
But, in the case of Obama, he was a citizen of the US at birth AND a natural born British subject. This creates divided loyalties and, since the original meaning in the Constitution [as the Founders knew it] has NOT been changed, Obama IS NOT natural born.
Citizen, yes - natural born, no.
Hey Drew, I am going to send this to you, too.
I posted this yesterday, on what turned into a dead thread. I laugh because for the past nine and a half years, it seems that every thread I post on then fizzles to a halt asap. :) I am intrested to hear what people have to say about this case:
First off, I think this is a good thing, and I believe it would end up with the courts determining definitively what a ‘natural born citizen’ actually is. Regardless of opinions here, it is still vague. (And yes, I have read ALL of the arguments about Vattel, etc.)
Here is a question for those who think that it is cut and dry:
My son is twelve. He was born in Virginia. Through his mother (me) he is descended from men who fought in the revolution (letters from Valley Forge in our possession!), as well as both soldiers fighting for the north and south in the Civil War. Also, we have a claim that we are related to one of the original supreme court justices, as well as one of the founding families of Washington, DC. He is totally American.
I was not married to his father (and if you dare tell me off for being a tramp, etc, you can kiss my derriere—I could have avoided that and had an abortion, but I didn’t!!!) who was living in the US as a German national on a work visa. He decided he didn’t want anything to do with the situation, once he was back in Germany. My son has never met him, and has never been to Germany, other than driving through on our way to Spain.
When my son was born, I called the German consulate to see how I might get some child support. They told me that my son was not eligible to be a dual citizen, as we were not married, and the father’s name was not on the birth certificate.
So, if my son is NOT a dual citizen, is not a naturalIZED citizen, was born in the US to a mother who was in her mid-twenties, how is he not a natural born citizen? What court in 2010 would contend that the rights of citizenship would go through his father, whom he has never met/had contact with, as opposed to his mother? What court is going to assign him some type of “lesser” citizenship than a kid whose mom might not know who his dad is? NONE.
This type of case, which is probably fairly common, is what would keep the courts from deciding that there is a third type of citizen (not implicitly stated) in the Constitution.
I know a lot of people screaming about natural born citizenship determined ONLY by two US citizen parents disagree, but I think that the fuzziness of the meaning, and the lack of explanation by the founders, can give the courts a lot of leeway in deciding the way that makes the most sense for the US today.
I am not a troll, and anyone who calls me one is a joke.If there is proof that Obama was born in any other country than the US, you bet, I agree he is NOT a NBC. I loathe the man, and can’t even listen to clips of his voice on Rush, but I do not agree that (if born in the US) he is not a NBC because of his father’s citizenship.