[ml/nj]

born within the bounds of the United States.

Sorry. But that defines a native born citizen, NOT a natural born citizen.

See On Constitutional Eligibility.

ML/NJ

[Sacajaweau]

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/supreme-court-justice-scalia-believes-natural-born-citizenship-is-jus-soli/

[MMaschin]

While 'natural born' in the terms natural-born Subject, and natural-born Citizen may mean the same thing Subject DOES NOT mean the same thing as Citizen. That makes a BIG difference. A monarch would want as many people as possible, anyone born in his realm including those not specifically mentioned in positive law, to have fealty towards him. On the other hand a country would not want to extend the protections of Citizenship out to those not loyal to it.


So 'natural born' may mean the same in both terms - according to natural law (without positive law) at the time of birth it does not have anything to do with the location of birth. The location of birth is more relevant to the subject of the term Subject or Citizen. While natural law governing who is a Subject may want to include as many as possible, natural law governing the second does not.


And a point missed by many of those who equate 'citizen at birth' with 'natural born citizen', the prince in this story IS NOT a 'US Citizen at birth', if they do not fill out a Form FS-240 and submit it to the US embassy he DOES NOT become a US Citizen. That alone is proof positive that those born in a foreign country to US Citizen parent(s) become US Citizens as the result of Positive US law and not Natural law and are therefore not 'natural born Citizens' of the US.