Is Prince Harry’s son Archie eligible to be US president? (Shameless vanity)

3/9/21 | GQuagmire

[GQuagmire]

Had an interesting discussion on a group chat with my family last night. My youngest daughter who is liberal and believes the mainstream media (she’ll come around eventually) was up in arms about the mean treatment of little Archie by the royal family. Skin color, lack of title, no security etc. I did a little research on his lack of title and I found out about the George V convention. Long story short there’s a internet chat, discussion about Archie becoming President one while his cousin will be king at the same time.

[Cboldt]

Military bases in foreign countries are not considered american soil.

Thomas v. Lynch - 5th Circuit - August 7, 2015 - 14-60297

[DiogenesLamp]

Show me where the U.S. Constitution defines natural-born citizen.

Not hard for an open mind, impossible for a closed mind.

I learn a lot from etymology. Where did this word "citizen" come from?

The proper word for English Common Law of 1776 was "Subject." How did the common usage change from "Subject" to "Citizen"? What is the impetus for this change in usage?

[DoodleDawg]

If citizenship depends on a statute, then it is naturalization, even if there is no naturalization ceremony.

And that is in the Constitution where exactly?

Rogers v. Bellei illustrates this.

Of course it did. Well, the kids living here so Rogers v. Bellei would be moot even if later law didn't supersede it.

That said, I would guess that nearly all of the public is of a mind that naturalization only occurs if and when there is a ceremony.

Propably. So if there isn't a ceremony then are they natural born?

Naturalization only works on, and is only necessary for people who are not or would not be citizens otherwise.

True. I don't see where Harry's kid needed a ceremony.

[DiogenesLamp]

If I though I could get any intellectual honesty out of you, I would ask you if we had natural born citizens prior to the existence of the 14th amendment.

If you answered "yes", then I would ask you how a citizen that needs the 14th amendment to be a citizen, could be the same as those who didn't need it to be a citizen.

But I think it would be an exercise in futility for the both of us.

[jz638]

What does age have to do with being a "natural born citizen"?

The original question let the title was "is he eligible to be US President? Unlike the term "natural born citizen", which is specified but never successfully defined in the Constitution (much to the chagrin of internet posters everywhere), a minimum age to become President is defined as 35 and there is no legal disagreement over what "age 35" means.

[Gena Bukin]

The inbred monarchy has no business being in the US. The poor kid might have US citizenship via mommy but he is no more qualified than anchor baby Harris

There is a difference between qualified and eligible. Archie is not qualified because he is a baby (also why he's not eligible). But when he turns 35, who's to say he won't be a solid leader?

And to be fair, Archie is probably the least inbred of all the royal family members.

[DiogenesLamp]

The kid is a natural-born citizen because his mother was a citizen.

Prior to 1922, she couldn't pass on citizenship. Would he have been a citizen prior to 1922? The law of that time says "no", but i'm interested in hearing what you think would have happened.

I find strong cognitive dissonance to be fascinating.

[DiogenesLamp]

LOL! Over the years I've found very little value in the opinions you post.

I absolutely believe that.

[DoodleDawg]

Firstly, the 14th amendment *IS* naturalization (en masse) by legislative act, and secondly, according to what I read earlier, Archie was born in London, so the 14th amendment doesn't even apply.

Naturalization laws do. Part of those laws requires identifying who doesn't need to be naturalized, AKA natural-born citizens, and Archie is covered by that because of his mother.

I think he is only a citizen from the naturalization act of 1952. (or subsequent iteration thereof)

Later than that. The current law is 8 U.S. Code § 1401 which identifies people who don't need to be naturalized to be citizens, AKA natural-born citizens.

This leaves him in the position of having to "elect" to remain an American citizen, or choose to be a British subject.

Why? Nothing prevents him from having dual citizenship.

And I will reiterate. If you have to "elect" to be a citizen, you are not a natural born citizen. You are a creature of written law, not natural law.

And so far as I know, though admittedly I don't keep up with the doings of the Royals, Archie hasn't had to elect anything.

[taxcontrol]

Well you are entitled to ignore the Constitution and the laws of Congress. You can even pretend that they are “objectively true”, but that fantasy does not change reality.

[Cboldt]

-- So if there isn't a ceremony then are they natural born? --

That's what most people believe, and they are closed minded so discussion on the point is waste.

[mewzilla]

He likely doesn’t want US citizenship if he has a visa that allows him to dodge US income taxes.

[DoodleDawg]

Prior to 1922, she couldn't pass on citizenship. Would he have been a citizen prior to 1922? The law of that time says "no", but i'm interested in hearing what you think would have happened.

Under the laws of the time, no. Under current law he's a natural born citizen.

I find strong cognitive dissonance to be fascinating.

Sorry to disappoint. But I admit I find birther threads amusing.

[DoodleDawg]

If I though I could get any intellectual honesty out of you, I would ask you if we had natural born citizens prior to the existence of the 14th amendment.

Yes. Honest enough?

If you answered "yes", then I would ask you how a citizen that needs the 14th amendment to be a citizen, could be the same as those who didn't need it to be a citizen.

Because your buddy Roger Taney and his Scott v. Sanford decision. The 14th Amendment overruled that. Federal law also includes the language of the 14th Amendment - "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and identifies the other ways natural-born citizenship is acquired.

But I think it would be an exercise in futility for the both of us.

It certainly would. But it's fun for at least one of us.

[Magnatron]

Obama and Harris slipped in, so that ship has sailed...

[RC one]

Our forefathers were deeply concerned about the prospect of the presidency being usurped by foreign powers-namely Great Britain. This is what prompted John Jay to write a letter to George Washington prompting him to include an eligibility clause in the constitution which was done. So we have a clear ORIGINAL INTENT: prevent the presidency from being usurped by foreign powers.

The popular line of thinking is that our forefathers were slavishly devoted to the English Common Law in all regards including the definition of a Natural Born Citizen; however, the English common law definition of a Natural Born Citizen was built up around a monarchy which we fought a revolution to get away from and which is entirely different than a representative democracy. While we may be slavishly devoted to the English law in most cases there is evidence that we were not completely devoted to it as the Law of Nations by Emmerich Vattel is cited as a major influence on our forefathers who wrote our constitution and Emmerich Vattel is absolutely, unequivocally adamant that a Natural Born Citizen is an individual who was A.) BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF B.) CITIZEN PARENTS.

In 1778, America needed immigrants desperately however so our forefathers penned the eligibility clause without strictly defining Natural Born Citizenship so as not to imply that immigrants would be in any way "second class citizens".

Their equivocation on the matter was evidenced by the naturalization acts of 1790 and 1795. So the years passed by without a clear definition and it was generally assumed that NBC in America was exactly the same as NBC in English Common Law but I feel that it's safe to say that if the King of England's rule could be usurped by voters, the English Common Law definition of NBC would be entirely different. It would be Vattel's definition. Given our forefather's ORIGINAL INTENT and the undeniable fact that they were frequently referencing the Law of Nations when they constructed our constitution, I think it's safe to say that they were absolutely referring to the Vattel definition when they penned the eligibility clause, not the King of England's definition.

But, we are in fact slavishly devoted to the English Common Law in many regards and so, despite compelling evidence to the contrary, we have leaned towards the English Common Law definition of NBC instead of the Vattel definition.

width=700

The Law of Nations

[DoodleDawg]

He likely doesn’t want US citizenship if he has a visa that allows him to dodge US income taxes.

The kid's 22 months old. I imagine his wants at this point are pretty limited.

[RC one]

I will never accept either of them as NBCs. Never.

[DoodleDawg]

That's what most people believe, and they are closed minded so discussion on the point is waste.

I'm always interested in what birthers believe.

[algore]

Does he have a birth certificate from hawaii?

If yes, then eligible.