Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: batazoid

The decision was that because Ark was born on U.S. soil, he was a citizen. Although the opinion didn’t use the words, “natural born citizen” (NBC) it would seem that being a citizen because you were born on U.S. soil would be an NBC.


19 posted on 01/09/2024 5:05:01 PM PST by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ (Jude 3) and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Jim W N

In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. The first class consists of children born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consists of all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only about members of the first class. Regarding members of the second class, the Court doubted they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. In the Court’s opinion, natural born citizens are “distinguished from” aliens or foreigners, suggesting that a natural born citizen is someone who is not a “foreigner” (foreign citizen) at birth [05].
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court, reversing prior precedent, ruled that, under some circumstances, children born in the United States, of non-U.S.-citizen parents, acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. But, to this day, the Supreme Court has never ruled that such children are natural born citizens. On the contrary, our nation’s highest court has consistently used the term “natural born citizen” only about persons born on U.S. soil, to U.S.-citizen parents.


21 posted on 01/09/2024 5:28:32 PM PST by batazoid (Plainclothes cop at Capital during Jan 6 riot...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson