Someone here on vacation on a temporary travel visa is quite a bit different from a legal resident alien permanently residing in the US who has not yet obtained citizenship through naturalization. Santorum’s father for instance was a legal resident alien but not a naturalized citizen when Rick was born, yet he was not under the jurisdiction of Italy either (not to mention his service in the US military prior to his naturalization proved that he was no longer subject to the jurisdiction of Italy). Rick Santorum is a NBC and is eligible to hold the office of POTUS. So are Rubio and Romney and Jindal.
For this same reason.... children born in the U.S. of Diplomat parents are also not considered citizens. They are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
And yet American law says that a child born outside of the US to citizen parent(s) is considered a natural born citizen if certain conditions are met. The reason the children of foreign diplomats are not considered US citizens at birth is due to the unique legal status of foreign diplomats and that embassies are considered sovereign ground of that embassy’s country, not the country in which the embassy is located. This also means that the children of US diplomats serving abroad are not citizens of that country at birth but are US citizens and naturally born, i.e. a US embassy, no matter where it is located is considered to be sovereign ground of the United States.
The US citizenship of the parent or parents only comes into play in cases of a child born outside of the US. This means that someone born outside of the US can still be considered a citizen at birth (NBC) if both parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.; if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national and for those born in US possessions, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and finally; any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time).
Furthermore that means the child of parents neither of whom are US citizens and are merely working for a US embassy or US military base abroad are not considered US citizens at birth because the parental citizenship conditions for children born outside of the US are not met under Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Codes.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
I'm surprised people still try to use this silly argument about the 14th amendment.
I’m surprised people still use the silly argument that children born in the United States are something other than US and naturally born citizens at birth. There are only two types of citizens – those born in the US who are citizens at birth (NBC) and people who are born outside of the US who obtain citizenship through naturalization. A child born in the US (excepting a child born here to foreign diplomats) is not required to obtain “naturalization” because they don’t have to being that they are natural born citizens.
Then........under the Constitution's strict requirements, Rick is not a "Natural Born Citizen". Neither is Barack, Marco or Bobby.
So are Rubio and Romney and Jindal.
It is my understanding that George Romney was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of Mitt. George's father never relinquished his citizenship (or did his mother) while living in Mexico and under the "Naturalization Act of 1790" children of U.S. citizens living abroad were still considered citizens......even if born on foreign soil. Since George Romney was a citizen..... Mitt Romney is considered a "Natural Born Citizen".
There are only two types of citizens – those born in the US who are citizens at birth (NBC) and people who are born outside of the US who obtain citizenship through naturalization.
Simply not true! Both terms ("Natural Born Citizen" and "Citizen") are used in the qualifying factors for the Presidency.....so it is quite obvious the framers considered them different terms. At the moment the Constitution was ratified there were not yet any folks who had been naturalized.......so right there that would indicate a minimum of three types of eventual citizen classifications.
This is from the Naturalization Act of 1790:
"That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, "shall be considered" as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:"
Why do you suppose the different terms were in use in 1790? This law did not say that children born on foreign soil to American parents are "Natural Born Citizens". It says they should be "Considered" as such! The distinction we see in [Article II Section I] remained in usage through the passage of this first Naturalization Act by Congress a short time later.
But.....in the 14th Amendment we only see, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are "citizens" It does not say that such persons are considered as citizens or to be declared as citizens. It just says they are "Citizens".