Kawakita v. United States
No. 570
Argued April 2-3, 1952
Decided June 2, 1952
[From the facts of the case]
"At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport,"
[ Do Natural Born Citizens take oath of allegiances to the United States? Do natural born citiznes have foreign citizen parents? ]
-snip-
"MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a national both of the United States and of Japan, was indicted for treason, the overt acts relating to his treatment of American prisoners of war. He was
Page 343 U. S. 720
convicted of treason after a jury trial, see 96 F.Supp. 824, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed. 190 F.2d 506. The case is here on certiorari. 342 U.S. 932."
-snip-
[Kawakita a duel citizen at birth and "US native born" with split allegiances between two countries. Are native born citizens the same as natural born citizens? ...No ]
-snip-
"First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97."
- end snip -
The Supreme Court concluded that Kawakita was born in the US to foreign parents who held citizenships of the United States and Japan. We also see here that the Supreme Court concluded he was a 14th Amendment citizen. Before the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, Kawakita would have been held by the United States as a foreigner, and it would have been an absurdity to declare Kawakita a natural born citizen by anyone and still is. It is very clear that the Supreme Court differentiates between native born and natural born citizens as this 1952 Supreme Court opinion clearly demonstrates. The Supreme Court may describe natural born citizen as natives, but they never go the other way around by saying that ONLY native born are natural born citizens as this court opinion clearly demonstrates...again. This has been explained to you many times.
“It is very clear that the Supreme Court differentiates between native born and natural born citizens as this 1952 Supreme Court opinion [(Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717)] clearly demonstrates.”
Ummm....natural born citizen isn’t found in that decision. MAYBE it wasn’t required, since he wasn’t trying to run for the office of President.
However, the facts it lists:
“At petitioner’s trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country. During the war, he reached his majority in Japan, changed his registration from American to Japanese, showed sympathy with Japan and hostility to the United States, served as a civilian employee of a private corporation producing war materials for Japan, and brutally abused American prisoners of war who were forced to work there. After Japan’s surrender, he registered as an American citizen, swore that he was an American citizen and had not done various acts amounting to expatriation, and returned to this country on an American passport.”
indicates it is very hard to lose one’s citizenship by birth in the USA.
You ask, “Do Natural Born Citizens take oath of allegiances to the United States?”
But the Court says, “In 1939, shortly before petitioner turned 18 years of age, he went to Japan with his father to visit his grandfather. He traveled on a United States passport, and, to obtain it, he took the customary oath of allegiance.”
So it seems the answer is yes.