Congressional Research Service
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
Birth within the United States
Main articles: Birthright citizenship in the United States and Jus soli
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:
Is born in the United States
Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
Has parents that are in the United States for business
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[6] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[7]”
You think I care what the Congressional Research has to opine on this matter? I don’t. Lol
Pure unadulterated B$.
Okies should know better since most of the dumb ones left in the Great Okie March.
Correct, in the case Rubio, his parents were legal residents therefore he is natural born in accordance with the 14th Amendment.
You are off on the wrong foot here. It is not possible for Congress to modify or re-define ANY constitutional term by a subsequent action of Congress. To put it another way, Congress CANNOT change the meaning of words or terms written in the U.S. Constitution. It is beyond their power to make changes to our governing document.
The only thing they can do is initiate an Amendment process, and even that cannot be completed without the consent of 3/4ths of the state legislatures. To my knowledge, Article II has not been repealed by any subsequent Amendment, and therefore is still in force with the same meaning it possessed in 1787.
The constitution expressly says that the Congress only has the power to "naturalize." (Which means to make "like natural.") Congress cannot Make something natural. It must either BE natural, or it is not. Any citizenship status which REQUIRES an act by Congress is an artificial status. It is a created condition, not a natural one.
Hope that clears things up for you a bit.