Replies

Native born citizenship: A native born citizen is one whose citizenship derives from the facts of his birth, and who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth. In both US and British law, those born within the sovereign territory of the country or born to parents who are citizens (subjects) of the country when the person is born are native citizens (subjects.)

This, IMHO, has caused one of the two BIGGEST points of confusion on the subject.

While it’s quite true that both British and US law acknowledged jus soli, the authority where it resides is quite different that what most people think-

The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker,[annotated] Blackstone's Commentaries

Jus soli citizenship may HAVE been part of English Law, but the ‘King’ in America is the States. The power of denization is theirs, NOT the federal governments.

-------

Secondly, the repeated sentence from Vattel all the way to Wong Kim Ark ‘native, or natural born’ suggests a single type of citizen because the word *OR* is not an exclusive one [as in either ‘or’] , but a refining/ restatement *OR*.

Here’s the link for anyone who would like to see for themselves - Usage of the conjunction ‘or’

-----

So, IMHO, there are only 2 types of citizens; those made by Nature, and those made by man.

IMHO, there are only 2 types of citizens; those made by Nature, and those made by man.

Great post, Mama. I completely concur, and would add that the Framers understood that distinction in citizenship without question - hence the phrase in Article II, Section I, "Natural Born Citizen".

One would have to believe that the Framers inserted that term haphazardly, to conclude that they had no intention to set the qualifications bar for President, any higher than for any other elected federal office.

I've read the Constitution many times, and can find no place where their language was imprecise or vague. These were some of the most learned men of the Enlightenment. Not only were they excellent craftsmen of concepts into words, but brilliant thinkers as well.

No - logic and reason (as well as written communications between the Framers) dictates that they were seeking to ensure that our Presidents had the purest degree of citizenship possible.

The wisdom of their thinking has been borne out in the treasonous conduct of the current President, whose lineage is decidedly split between America and his father's origins.