A naturalized person is an immigrant who comes to America and goes thru the process to become a citizen, as her father did. He completed the process one year before her birth. Because her mother never became a US citizen, but her father did, and she was born in the US, she became a naturalized citizen by the merits of her father. Had her mother also become naturalized, she would be Natural Born, as a citizen born on US Soil to two citizens (Jus Soli).
Ark was never granted Natural Born Status, rather naturalized citizenship.
The fact that Elk interchanged the two did not translate to US law. The distinction is clear. Nobody denies that she would have citizenship status.
Obama’s father was not a US citizen, ever. His mother was not back in the US long enough to confer Naturalized status to Barak Obama II, therefore, he is not Natural Born, and I believe he is not a US Citizen at all. This is just my opinion. He could produce evidence that shows something unexpected. But from what we know, I think he is an Illegal Alien.
This is, in part, the central legal holding of US v. Wong Kim Ark...
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Do you see the word "naturalized" anywhere in there? Of course you don't. The majority opinion in Ark held that he was a citizen at birth.
People can debate until the cows come home about the distinction between citizen at birth and natural born citizen. Many will argue it's a distinction with no legal difference, other will argue to the contrary. But nowhere in Ark does the majority hold that Ark is a naturalized citizen, nor is anyone else who is born on US soil while subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They are citizens at birth, irrespective of their parent's citizenship status. That is the import of Ark with respect the 14th Amendment on an individual's citizenship status.
“The fact that Elk interchanged the two did not translate to US law. The distinction is clear.”
It doesn’t seem to have been clear to the Court. They seem to think them interchangeable - citizen by birth, native born citizen, and natural born citizen.
Other examples:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. ”
Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
“Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).
The point of those quotes is not to show total authority for my NBC interpretation, but to show reasonable doubt in Vattel’s definition - and a reasonable doubt would be all a court needs to stay away from removing Obama. Truth is, I suspect ANY doubt would suffice for a court to refuse to go there...