“If Obama was born on US soil, he is a natural born citizen thru jus solis. It wouldn’t matter who his parents were except if they were diplomats accredited to the US.”
NOT EXACTLY ...
PLEASE cite me Supreme Court case law that supports your assertion ... you can’t - ‘cause there ain’t any.
The 14th Amendment states:
“1. 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 ...”
WHERE does it say “natural born”? - NO WHERE! It SAYS “citizens”.
NOW:
Rep. John A. Bingham, argued before the House in 1871 that Dr. John Emilio Houard was a natural-born citizen of the United States. According to Bingham he was a natural-born citizen because he was “born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States” by the “express words of the Constitution, as amended today.” A naturalized male (women became naturalized through their husbands) were required to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” to other nations, and thus, could no longer be said to owe allegiance to anyone but the United States.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by Law Of Nations.
Rep. Bingham said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
It does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice (per BLACKSTONE) but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who do not owe allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.
A natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
I HAVE, MANY TIMES, QUOTED BLACKSTONE ON THIS, BUT HAVE FOUND OUT THAT JOHN ADAMS HELD VATTEL’S “LAW OF NATIONS” IN EVEN HIGHER ESTIMATION ...
Law Of Nations:
§ 212. Citizens and Natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Read United States v. Wong Kim Ark
We have native born [birthright] citizenship based on jus solis. It is being bestowed everyday on people being born in this country regardless of where their parents come from or their citizenship [diplomats excluded]. Since the distinction between native born and natural born has never been defined in the Constitution, it is pure speculation on how SCOTUS would rule. We do know that in practice, birthright citizenship is the law of the land. You can get citizenship three ways, through blood [jus sanguinis], thru birth on US soil [jus solis], and thru naturalization. For the first two, all you have to produce is the required documentation, i.e., there is no application like there is for naturalization. By birth, you are a citizen. I call that being natural born.
A natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law).
You can make that case in theory, but that is not the way the existing laws are written and administered. First, the US recognizes dual nationality
Second, if the child is born on US soil, he is a US citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents having all of the rights of citizenship.
Third, citizenship can be passed to children thru jus sanguinis under the following conditions: Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Of course that excluded all of those in the country prior to the Constitution being adopted and signed. Constitutional scholars differ on birthright citizenship and the intentions of the 14th Amendment. IMO it will take a constitutional amendment to change it. And I don't believe that you can make a distinction between native born and natural born essentially having two kinds of "natural born" citizens depending on whether that citizenship was conveyed thru jus solis or jus sanguinis. I do know that there is no distinction under current law and practice.