On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

Harvard Law Review ^ | MAR 11, 2015 | Neal Katyal & Paul Clement

[Electric Graffiti]

Children born to foreign nationals, whether here legally or illegally, are not U.S. citizens. No matter what the courts say. Since they can’t make law or make anyone a citizen

I would get naturalized if I were you. ;)

[Lurkinanloomin]

NBC. IT’S OVER.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As we learned during the Kenyanesian Usurpation, forfeit part, lose all.

[centurion316]

Children born to foreign nationals, whether here legally or illegally, are not U.S. citizens. No matter what the courts say.

You are wrong about this and it has nothing to do with the courts. Children born in this country become citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

[rolling_stone]

the cases were never heard “no standing “to bring them...

[rolling_stone]

read the 14th amendment...

[centurion316]

I have, many times. the key language

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.

Bye

[djstex]

Thanks As Always for the ping!
You Are the Best!

[Electric Graffiti]

Meaning they were not subject to any other jurisdictions except the U.S. As in stateless slaves.

[Electric Graffiti]

Indians were gypped out of citizenship under the 14th at the time of it’s adoption. I wonder why? I guess they weren’t reading it right. /s

[calenel]

Note that native born is not the same as natural born.

This statement is not correct. The source typically used to create a distinction is Blackstone, but if you read chapter 10 you will find that the terms are used interchangeably. The other sources used, such as Vattel, don't even agree on a definition. It's basically grasping at straws.

[calenel]

That would seem to destroy the sovereignty argument at the base of the requirement, no?

I have tried that argument with the "born in Washington DC to two natural-born parents on the 4th of July" crowd and they always try to pivot. They are not rational; they simply see the definition as what ever will resolve their cognitive dissonance.

[calenel]

Wishing and hoping still won’t make it so, lol.

The dictionary definition of “natural-born” at the time of the writing of the Constitution was “having or possessing an attribute from birth” and no alternative definition existed at the time, nor was one provided by the Founders. They could quite easily have done so instead of leaving that oh so important requirement to just three words already defined in the dictionaries of the day.

Either you are born a citizen or you are not. If born a citizen, you are a natural-born citizen. There is no third class of citizen, “born a citizen but not a natural-born citizen”. If you wish for there to be such a class of citizen, go get a constitutional amendment.

[calenel]

I’ve already posted what the author of the 14th meant.

You posted your own wishful interpretation of what the author of the 14th meant. A legal immigrant is not a "foreigner" by any law or precedent, even if not a citizen, so your argument fails. They have made themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in a ay a tourist or a diplomat or an illegal alien has not.

And your suggestion that Jim Noble get naturalized might have been facetious but it is clearly a dodge of his refutation of your feeble argument. Natural-born versus naturalized; born natural versus made natural; there are only two types of citizens.

[Political Junkie Too]

The closest contemporary writing to the ratification of the Constitution on the subject of natural born citizens being of two citizen parents is Thomas Paine's 1791 book The Rights of Man, written just two years after ratification.

From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions. While it doesn't have the authority of law, it is a window into it's contemporary understanding.

If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.

In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.

But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.

The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.

Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.

Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"

It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."

Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.

Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.

Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution and a year after the law passed in 1790. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.

-PJ

[Electric Graffiti]

IBTZ