Replies

I concede only that if the legislature and legal system (grew a pair and) further defined “natural born” you could *become* correct. But until then, the language of Morrison Remick Waite and John Bingham stands as the most authoritative definition available. Ergo, in the language of my Constitution itself, every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a natural born citizen. And, until we legally add to it, that is where it stands.

I, too, would like more definition.

However, I still believe that precedence matters.

I still believe that Congress, or the Courts, if they were to rule on the matter, would take a hard look at the rules as they relate to Citizenship:

“Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.” US Dept. of State.

I strongly believe that “Natural Born Citizen” means what it says, in the phrase itself.

Anyone who is a Citizen, when they are born, is a Citizen due to natural birth.

That person does not need a Court or a Naturalization process, or an oath or an adoption.

I can find no authority, anywhere, that states one can be born a citizen, and at the very moment of birth be recognized as a Citizen, without also, simultaneously, being a Natural Born Citizen, as well.