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".
For one thing, notice that the Naturalization Act of 1790 states that "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…
Except that subsequent law allowed citizenship rights and the right to vote to non-white people. It might come as a big surprise to you but both Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice are not only citizens but also have the right to vote contrary to what the Naturalization Act of 1790 states and other laws in force at the time it was written. The statement “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” grants automatic citizenship to the minor children of naturalized citizens but makes no mention of whether those children were born here or not.
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:"
One again I will attempt to explain to you that the provision of a person born outside of the United States to have a parent or parents with US citizenship only applies to persons born outside of the US. It does not apply to those born in the US.
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".
OK. You have me totally confused. On one hand you are a saying the 14th says they are not citizens but OTOH, you are saying it doesn’t say that and they are?
Again the 14th states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are "citizens". A person not born in the United States, unless they fall under the “beyond the sea” and to a parent or to parents with US citizenship require “naturalization” where as someone born in the United States does not require “naturalization”. Why? Because those born in the United States are already natural born citizens.