When was that ever true? Here is how the law is administered now.
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “New” Section 309(a)
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) of the INA, as made applicable by the “new” Section 309(a) of the INA provided:
A blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth;
The father was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for five years, at least two of which were after reaching the age of 14.
The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
While the person is under the age of 18 years -- the person is legitimated under the law of his/her residence or domicile, the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father –
“Old” Section 309(a) of the INA- A child born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under the former Section 301(a)(7) of the INA as made applicable by the “old” Section 309(a) of the INA if the U.S. citizen father, prior to the child’s birth, had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14, and if the paternity of the child had been established by legitimation prior to the child reaching the age of 21. The “old” Section 309(a) of the INA is applicable to individuals who were 18 on November 14, 1986 and to individuals whose paternity had been established by legitimation prior to that date. Individuals who were at least 15 on November 14, 1986, but under the age of 18, could opt to have their claim determined in accordance with the provisions of either the “old” or the “new” Section 309(a).
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.
> “As soon as a woman married a US citizen she was automatically a US citizen even if she was not previously a US Citizen.”
> “When was that ever true?”
This was true of English Common Law practiced in the Colonies and after the adoption of the Constitution.
It was likely true up until universal suffrage, when women won the right to vote.
Marriage as an institution in colonial times and during the 18th and 19th centuries in America was undoubtedly stronger as an institution then than it is now where a married couple can easily toss their marriage aside as easy as taking out the garbage.
The question is what were the framers thinking when they inserted ‘natural born citizen’ into the Constitution? We know from John Jay’s letter to General George Washington they were thinking of a further check against a person assuming control of the military who was not in full allegiance to the Constitution.
But a related question is what does it mean ‘natural born citizen’. The answer is a child born of citizens on US soil or its territories or its possessions or allowing for transitioning or living temporarily abroad but having a permanent domicile on US soil or its territories or its possessions.
The phrase ‘born of citizens’ means one citizen? two citizens? It means two citizens for in marriage the women was accorded full rights and inheritances of the husband’s domain and was deemed a citizen by marriage even if she had been a Native American or French or other.
Children born out of wedlock had no citizenship status unless they were recognized by the father or the father was made to accept responsibility by the local community or parish, or further an application was made and were naturalized. To gain further insight one needs to understand the historical meaning of simple citizenship
Not all persons born on American soil were automatic citizens.
In fact the definition of citizen was only made clear in regards to marriage and property. Native Americans, former English subjects, non-christians, German and Dutch variations, Bastardy, illegitimacy, freed slaves were in the background of a local process of how citizenship was transmitted or not transmitted to persons. Birth, naturalization, property purchase and so on were all factors in deciding a right to citizenship; citizenship had privileges. But birth alone on US controlled soil did not guarantee American citizenship.
The only reason this is a hot topic today is because people sense Obama does not really like traditional America, that he harbors ill will against traditionalists who are mostly Christian whites and that he will seek to make America in his own image whatever that is. He has divulged classified material for no good purpose and it is suspected that such release has led to deaths of Americans abroad. He seems not to care about America’s history and its traditions. He seems against these things, therefore we are uncomfortable and uncertain, hence we ask questions.
So Obama’s allegiance and loyalties are called into question. We ponder and learn anew the notions of citizenship, natural born, allegiance (what is owed as a duty), loyalty (what is felt and valued) and so on because we sense these things are important to governance.
Here’s a good read on all these matters: