Replies

The Supreme has never interchanged the two - native v. natural born citizens - with the exception after giving background information about where the citizens were born in the US and making note the parents were US citizen. In those cases, they referred to subjects as native born and only after presenting them as natural born citizens. Got it.

Actually this is not the case. The early decisions treated "native" and "natural born" as equivalent. But they did so with *both* meaning "born in the country of parents who are citizens". Even after the 14th amendment, which does not use the word "native" or "native born" (or of course "natural born") it's just that the language has morphfed to define "native born" as born in the country, regardless of parental citizenship. But in Vattel, and the Supreme Court cases quoting or paraphrasing his definition, the two terms are joined by and "OR".

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens", or the paraphrase from Minor vs Happesett:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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

The two terms meant the same thing, and they did not mean "born in the country" alone).

it's just that the language has morphfed to define "native born" as born in the country, regardless of parental citizenship. But in Vattel, and the Supreme Court cases quoting or paraphrasing his definition, the two terms are joined by and "OR".

OK good.

In reflection, I see that in all SCOTUS cases they gave a good background on the subjects whether he was only a native or a natural born as with Ms. Elg in her 1939 case before they referred to her as a natural born citizen.

To cite a few cases...

In Perkins vs. Elg, They described Steinkauler as only to native-born. However, SCOTUS insured the readers that not only was Steinkauler born inside the US and that he had a US citizen father.

1952, Kawakita v. United States, they referred to him as native born, but moreover, described him as a duel citizen who took an oath of allegiance to the US while a minor, and a 14th Amendment citizen.

In 1898, Wong Ark was only described as a native born who had alien parents.

In 1952, Mandoli v. Acheson. Mandoli was described as only native born of duel citizenship who had un-naturalized parents.

In 1958, Perez v. Brownell, AG. Perez was only described as a native born who had Mexican born parents.

The early decisions treated "native" and "natural born" as equivalent. But they did so with *both* meaning "born in the country of parents who are citizens". Even after the 14th amendment, which does not use the word "native" or "native born" (or of course "natural born") it's just that the language has morphfed to define "native born" as born in the country, regardless of parental citizenship. But in Vattel, and the Supreme Court cases quoting or paraphrasing his definition, the two terms are joined by and "OR".

Yep -- I have seen translations of French works of the late 18th century posted here where "naturel" is translated "natural born" and "indigenes" is translated "natural born citizen".