Replies

Thanks very much for the link. It proves my point.

In the words of the US Supreme Court:

The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that '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,' contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [169 U.S. 649, 703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

According to this decision, there could be some question whether a child born overseas, with one or both parents being American citizens, is a natural-born citizen in the meaning of the Constitution. The wording of this decision, in fact, implies that such a child would not be.

However, this decision is from 1898, and later laws and decisions prior to Obama's birth would be relevant.

The decision is quite clear that there are only two types of citizens, those who acquired it at birth (natural-born or native-born, the terms are used interchangeably, with the implication being that natural-born is an older and somewhat archaic term by 1898) and those who acquired citizenship by naturalization.

I was intrigued by the fact that children born overseas to American parents are considered naturalized by act of Congress, and therefore not native-born or natural-born.

The upshot of all this is that if Obama was born in Honolulu, he's a natural-born citizen fully elgible to be president. If he was born outside the US, legitimate questions arise.

The decision makes it very plain that acts of any other sovereign power (Indonesia, Kenya, UK) are utterly irrelevant to a person's standing as a US citizen.

Again I disagree with you. The Fourteenth Amendment does not address the issue of natural born citizen. It does however provide for a general and broad definition of US citizenship and to provide equal protection under the law.

From your excerpt: The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that '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,' contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization.

Incomplete. Using a single source to define US citizenship ensues confusion. Generally speaking, US citizenship can happen in 3 ways; place of birth, by blood, and naturalization. Any one of these can bestow US citizenship, but it may not make one a natural born citizen.

The Constitutional framers were obviously worried of loyalty to the country. Natural born in the strictest sense is being born within the United States to US citizens is what the framers had in mind. Being born to foreigners or overseas may produce a person who has split his loyalty among nations, and clearly the Framers wanted to avoid that person from becoming president. However, the question of natural born citizen has not been addressed by the Supreme Court.

"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." Senator Howard, who wrote this Citizenship clause commented, "This amendment which I have clarified is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already..[It] does not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."[4]

I don't understand how the Supreme Court made that decision without considering the above quote.

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 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.” This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who owe no allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.