I guess you must have difficulty with the English Language. The usage example for 1709 states, "The children of all natural-born Subjects born out if Ligeance of her Majesty .. shall be deemed .. to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom." And the 1833 example states, "It is not true that every person, born out of dominion of the crown, is therefore an alien; nor is a person born within them necessarily a natural-born subject."
What could possibly be clearer?
ML/NJ
Perhaps I should rephrase. I don’t see any *necessary* connection to who one’s parents are in the natural-born definition. Those instances of the term’s use cited are not U.S. law, nor are they exhaustive of all the uses of the term. They are random.
Moreover, the excerpt “The children of all natural-born Subjects born out if Ligeance of her Majesty .. shall be deemed .. to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom” does not say ONLY children born of natural-born subjects shall be deemed natural-born subjects. And as you know, we do not have “subjects” in America, we have citizens.
Also, the phrase “nor is a person born within them necessarily a natural-born subject” is hardly news. Children born as part of an invading army, children born of foreign diplomats, etc., have never been considered citizens. Notice the use of the word “necessarily”. The excerpt does not give the particulars of who among those born on a country’s soil qualify for citizenship, and therefore it leaves 14th amendment citizens from birth, for instance, open for natural-born status.
See, I can read English.
“The usage example for 1709 states, “The children of all natural-born Subjects born out of Ligeance of her Majesty .. shall be deemed .. to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom......What could possibly be clearer?”
Thanks for the OED definitions, but I don’t think it is all clear they settle the issue. To some here, it is “clear” that NBC denotes some sort of “super-citizen” status: you must be born on American soil AND you must be born of 2 American citizens. In this view, anchor babies born of 1 or 2 non-citizen parents may be accorded citizen status at birth, they are not natural-born citizens. Being born on U.S. soil (however that is defined) is a necessary but not sufficient condition to establish that one is a natural-born citizen. Thus, even if it could be definitely established that BHO was born in Hawaii, that fact alone would not confer NBC status.
Conversely, this “purist” position states that being born of 2 American citizen parents also is only a necessary, but not sufficient condition to establish eligibility to become President. In this view, if it can be established that John McCain was born outside of U.S. soil, the fact that his parents were American citizens is irrelevant: he is not NBC, hence ineligible to be President.
Your OED definitions clearly call into question this latter claim. “out of Ligeance of her Majesty” implies being born in a jurisdiction not subject to the sovereign’s control/authority. This particular OED example is essentially saying that parental citizenship ALONE determines NBC status: it is a necessary and sufficient condition, in which case figuring out whether the hospital McCain was born in was part of Panama or Panama Canal territory is completely irrelevant.
Similarly, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, if being born in US territory were a necessary condition for NBC status, then it would be inexplicable for Congress in 1970 to enact a statute stating that children of 2 parents born abroad are natural born citizens. Thus, we have both a dictionary definition and statutory definition that point in the identical direction: all that matters for NBC status is whether both parents are US citizens. Everything else is irrelevant. Needless to say, the “purists” would argue rather vehemently against such a conclusion.
In short, what is “clear” to one group quite obviously is far from clear to other groups. The issue is unsettled both legally and semantically. Which is why I would hope the SC would be brave enough to weigh in and try to clarify matters. But I guarantee that if the SC adopted the OED view/definition, there likely will continue to be a contingent here that would argue the case was settled incorrectly, however much this contingent might approve of the outcome produced by the Court’s ruling. What could possibly be clearer?