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.

[Jack Black]

Ted Cruz was the issue at the time this article was written.

[be-baw]

True. And even with a more conservative judiciary , we’ll likely see as much if not more reliance on stare decisis. I don’t think any US citizen will ever be deemed ineligible to run for president

[editor-surveyor]

.
You’re just blowing your opinion up our ass.

The text of the amendment is all that matters.

[humblegunner]

If Puerto Ricans vote to become an independent nation, rather than a state, do the Puerto Ricans born before that vote remain US citizens?

Hell no, none of them are citizens.

Bunch of freeloading Mexicans on an island.

[Electric Graffiti]

As I said...someone is doing the oxy.

[nopardons]

That article contradicts what our government tells LEGAL IMMIGRANTS studying to become naturalized citizens of the USA!

[Behind the Blue Wall]

But “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are not the same thing. Seems like you were either born a NBC or not, but nothing you do after that could affect it.

[editor-surveyor]

.
There is no question on that. What was at birth controls the beginning, but citizenship can be revoked.

[Paine in the Neck]

I’d prefer it would just get settled one way or another by SCOTU, but I think your proposed definition is practically unworkable. As an example I give you a riddle to solve for my son: born on U.S. to two citizen parents but still would not qualify as a natural born citizen under your standard, as he also qualified (and received) a foreign passport at birth. How?

I understand that you would like your son to be considered NBC but if he has a passport from another country then he falls outside what I understand the Framers to mean. Another country has a claim on his citizenship so his loyalty is divided. I don't think the Framers considered dual citizens per se but the principle that motivated them to insert the NBC Clause is easy to understand in this case - if more than one country can claim your allegiance then you are NOT NBC.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Get your lips off of my proctus!
.

[faithhopecharity]

apparently that is a correct assessment

how far, how very far we have fallen from the republic that our founders bestowed on us

[Robert DeLong]

I agree with Mario’s argument as to what it means to be a “natural born citizen”.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? Why is the word “natural” inserted? It is a matter of allegiance.

You are focusing on the wrong word. Rather than focusing on the word "natural", you should focus on the word "Citizen."

In 1776, the normal term to refer to a member of a nation state was "Subject." How did the word "Citizen", which means something very different in the English of 1760, come to be the word chosen to represent members of the American nation state?

Why not "Subject"? It was the word everyone was already accustomed to using at that time. This word "citizen" did not mean member of a nation state at that time, it meant "city dweller." I can show you several English dictionaries of the period that define it as "Townsman."

A dictionary of the English language. by Samuel Johnson, 1768.

Cit. [contracted from Citizen] 1. An inhabitant of a city. 2. A pert low towniman. "

"Citizen. f.[citoyen Fr.] A Freeman of a City. Raleigh 2. A townman; not a gentleman. Shakefp3. an Inhabitant. Dryden"

It is also noted that it is a French word. So how did this French word come to describe the members of an Anglo Nation state? Why wasn't the normal and customary English word of "Subject" tossed aside in favor of this French word?

[DiogenesLamp]

John Bingham has more appropriate quotes. I’ve seen quotes from Jacob Howard that indicate he didn’t mind extending citizenship to the children born here of Aliens.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

Does that not then give a FOREIGN country the right to determine who is a natural born citizen of OUR country? If they grant a child born here to two US parents are passport then that kid is not an NBC. But if that don’t then he is? That would seem to destroy the sovereignty argument at the base of the requirement, no?

[Revolutionary]

The U.S. is a blood country; not a location country. Kingdoms, such as England were location countries. If you were born there, you were their subject. The founders rejected that notion. Citizenship was to be passed down by blood and naturalization. If your parents are citizens, then you are a citizen; regardless of where you are born. (some limitations based on time in the U.S. vs abroad have been added and changed). If your parents are not citizens, then you are not a citizen just by being born on U.S. soil.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Passports have absolutely nothing to do with the question.

The are strictly travel identification, not citizenship documents.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m still trying to find the law that congress has passed to make someone born to foreign nationals a citizen at birth...

Does anyone have a link?

Sure.

Here ya go.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

Presuming of course that the person in question had their citizenship reinstated. Would a current citizen who had lost and then regained their citizenship but was a NBC at birth still be a NBC?

[DoodleDawg]

I’m still trying to find the law that congress has passed to make someone born to foreign nationals a citizen at birth...

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth