Not to dice words here, but the Constitution does not say that one must be born within the geographic boundaries of the United States or any of their possessions in order to be natural born citizens. Until passage of the 14th Amendment, it didn’t even say that persons born within the boundaries are citizens (slaves and Indians weren’t citizens). It is a long estblished principal, going back through the days of the Roman Empire, that a persons is born a citizen if and only if his parents are citizens. The location of birth was irrelevant.
Ginsburg is corrent. Her grandson is a natural born citizen. Deal with it.
Well I have to say that is somewhat strange to me as I have a certificate of naturalization after being born of two american parents in Saigon Vietnam in 1956.
Perhaps the natural born part is only if you have “important” relatives
Natural Born? I think not. Look at this exchange in the arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS:
Justice Souter: Maybe it would be simpler if I asked the... I think I can ask the question a different way.
Do you think that the... the... the act of recognizing citizenship here for children born abroad is naturalization within the meaning of the naturalization clause?
Mr. Davis: Yes, Your Honor, it is naturalization within the meaning of the constitutional naturalization clause.
Naturalization CANNOT be Natural Born.
I agree. Both of my children were born in Germany when I was stationed there. It would be hard to imagine that the children born to US service members, while stationed overseas, are not Natural Born citizens.
I, like Ginsburg’s grandson was born overseas to U.S. citizen parents and am a natural born citizen as I did not have to go through a naturalization process.