On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

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

[Jack Black]

PDF We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” 1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

[Godebert]

The language is directly from The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758). There is also the essay written in 1789 by our nation's first historian and acting President of the Continental Congress, David Ramsay, who wrote:

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

[Political Junkie Too]

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

This is codified in the Constitution within the Preamble.

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of We the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children. For whom else was it crafted to secure?

"Ourselves," in the context of the Preamble, would be the grandfathered citizens of the United States at the forming. "Our Posterity" would be the citizen children of citizen parents (We the People). Naturalized citizens become We the People, and then the Posterity of We the People are its natural born citizens.

"We the People" gave ourselves the power to directly elect our representatives to the House of Representatives in the United States Congress. If you cannot vote for a Representative, then you are NOT "We the People."

The natural born citizen clause was meant to "secure" the presidency. The presidency has the tighter requirement of being a natural born citizen in contrast to Congress which only required being a citizen. In other words, "citizen" equaled "We the People," while "natural born citizen" equaled "Posterity of We the People." Otherwise, why use the phrase "natural born" at all in the Constitution? The Framers went through many alterations of the Constitution before settling on this language, so the distinction must have had a purpose.

The people of any nation have the right to choose who can join their nation. If they do not have the right to control their own citizenry, then they are at risk of invasion from outsiders.

There are two ways to join the nation: be the Posterity of its citizens, or become naturalized by laws passed by the representatives of the citizenry in Congress.

People who are not citizens of this country who birth children in this country take away the right of the citizens of this country to control who may become it's citizens. It is a de facto invasion from within by foreigners to take over the country without the consent of its native citizens.

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

But, if you are going to go to the effort of using oversized fonts in bold, then at least you ought to quote the decision which was that Wong Kim Ark, having been born in the United States, was a U.S. Citizen.

Silly me. I thought most people knew that part. It never occurred to me that someone who "read it 10 years ago" would have missed that part, but the business about the court claiming anyone born out of the Jurisdiction of the United States must be naturalized, is not so well known.

I thought it was amusing, because in all the discussions about Ted Cruz's citizenship status, I never saw that point advanced once, but of course I must have missed your commentary where you put it out their, having "read it ten years ago" and all.

Apparently it is amusing to me, but not you. I guess people see humor in different places.

Find a storm, face into the wind, shout until the cows go home. That is much more effective that what you are doing here.

Because all the discussions om Free Republic have great impact upon the world, with the exception of this particular one? So what? People come here to discuss thins, and if it amuses them to do so, what is wrong with that?

[DiogenesLamp]

My point is that this is how it is seen. People and the Courts have accepted this, whether it is right or wrong. My personal opinion on the matter is that the 14th was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of transient aliens, and this is clear if you read John Bingham's commentary in the debates on the 14th amendment.

My second point is that the 14th amendment cannot create "natural born citizens" because "natural born citizens" already existed before the 14ht, and did not require the 14th to be citizens.

Therefore any citizen who relies on the operation of the 14th amendment, cannot be a "natural born citizen" as the term was understood by the Founders.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is so far as the Courts and the public is concerned. They have their simple solution, and aren’t interested in a more complicated one.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yup you are right. It makes no difference to the average US Citizen. And Nikki Haley will never be President anyway. So, you might want to save everybody headaches and lay off this until it matters.

It will never matter. All the ridiculous ill-thought-out court decisions during the Obama administration have made it virtually impossible to get anyone to look at the original meaning of the term. It's now pretty much accepted by the court system that anyone born a citizen will be regarded as a "natural born citizen", and even if they aren't, the courts have ruled that State officials have no obligation to keep them off the ballot.

[Political Junkie Too]

The people of any nation have the right to choose who can join their nation. If they do not have the right to control their own citizenry, then they are at risk of invasion from outsiders. Ambiguous current interpretations of contemporaneous texts should not be the way to secure the Presidency to the people and its posterity.

People who are not citizens of this country who birth children in this country take away the right of the citizens of this country to control who may become it's citizens. It is a de facto invasion from within by foreigners to take over the country without the consent of its native citizens.

The children of non-citizens should not become President.

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

I agree, but I don’t see any clear path to fixing it. Liberals have made a shambles of what used to be common sense law.

[Godebert]

Very well stated.

[Godebert]

Never stop defending our Constitution. Even if all hope seems lost, we can NOT give up the fight. Surrender is NOT an option.

[Political Junkie Too]

The toughest, but probably most needed, is an amendment over birthright citizenship.

We need an amendment that says:

1. A child born within the United States of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
2. A child born outside the United States of two citizen parents, where at least one parent was resident within the United States in the previous 10 years is a natural born citizen.
3. A child born outside the United States of two citizen parents, where neither parent was resident within the United States during the previous 10 years, must naturalize the child within the first 10 years of the child's life.
4. A child born of only one citizen parent must naturalize the child within the first 10 years of the child's life, regardless of birth location.
5. A child born inside the United States of two non-citizen parents is not a citizen of the United States. Citizenry descends to the child based on relevant laws governing the parents of the child.
6. A child found within the United States of unknown parentage may become naturalized once the child reaches the age of 18. If adopted by a citizen parent, the child may become naturalized upon adoption.

-PJ

[Jack Black]

Thanks. That’s an excellent paddling over never heard anyone explain before.

[Jack Black]

Smart phones!! Ugh.
“Explanation I’ve never heard” not “paddling over.”

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks. That’s an excellent paddling over never heard anyone explain before.

Well thanks. I've been looking at and thinking about this subject for a long time. I wish people would grasp my point about the origin of the word "citizen" and why we dropped "subject" in lieu of it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3698369/posts?page=73#73

Everyone simply waltzes on past the most significant piece of evidence regarding the correct meaning of "natural born citizen". It baffles me that people cannot see it.

[Mr Rogers]

Hate to break it to you, but your 1758 date comes from the original text - which makes no reference to NBC: “Les Naturels ou indigenes font ceux qui font nes dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.” - “The Natural or Indigenous make those who are born in the country of Parens Citizens.”

Your translation was first published in 1797, which was 10 years after the Constitution.

[Godebert]

Nice try Rogers, but your 'google translate' is laughable.

French was the language of diplomacy in the 18th century and the Founding Fathers were educated men quite capable of reading and understanding the French language.

The correct translation from the French:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

[Godebert]

You can't change the meaning of natural born Citizen with an Amendment or any other law made by man.

That is why the Founding Fathers in 1795 repealed the natural born Citizen language of the Naturalization Act of 1790.

[Mr Rogers]

“The correct translation from the French:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. “

Actually, your injection of NBC is ridiculous, when the word being “translated” is “indigenes” - which has the SAME MEANING in both French and English! It didn’t need translation at all! “Indigene”: “a person or thing that is indigenous or native”

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/indigene

[Political Junkie Too]

So, a tourist to a country who drops a baby while there would not make an indigenous person, right? "Indigenous" people, in this sense, are not settlers or colonizers, the are people who descend from previous inhabitants, and who carry on the ways and traditions of their ancestors.

-PJ

[Godebert]

You are being dishonest. You have been dishonest since the beginning of the debate on this topic at FreeRepublic.

Your bogus 'google translate' reply is just further evidence of your dishonesty.

AGAIN..... the correct literal translation from the French:

Les naturals, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens.

The naturals, or natives, are those born in the country, of citizen parents.

In this context, the naturals, born in the country of CITIZEN parents, can NOT be defined any other way than Natural Born Citizens.

Give it up Rogers..... Nobody is buying your BS.