Replies

A natural born citizen is born to two parents who are citizens.
—
That is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it and welcome to vote accordingly.

However: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009

“To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”—Supreme Court of the United States ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark(1898)

“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 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.”—US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

El Gato’s post#60 and others in this thread tosses everything you have said and quoted into the trash bin of history.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2511602/posts

“That’s true, but since the Constitution defines very very few of its terms, we must look elsewhere for the definition understood by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

We know the term “natural born citizen” and the variant “natural born free citizen”, was in use well before the Constitution was written. But almost every use gives no hint as to it’s exact meaning.

However the Journals of the Continental Congress, for July 27, 1781 documents a translation of the French “naturels” to “natural born” in a secret agreement with France.

Vattel, in French, said that “naturels” and “indigenes” were those born in country of parents who were citizens. Many have argued that “naturels” means natives, and “indigenes” doesn’t mean naturals or natural born either.

(In reality depending on context, either word could be translated as “naturals”. But apparently those who translated that 1781 treaty felt “naturales” when modifying “subjects” was equivalent to “natural born”. If that was the understanding, then Vattels “naturels” could also be “natural born”.

The evidence is quite strong that “naturales” was understood, in these sorts of contexts, to mean “natural born”. Thus the case for the Vattel “definition”, requiring birth in the country (with exceptions for military and diplomats) of citizen parents, being the one the founders understood for “natural born citizen”, is very strong.”

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.

This doesn't make everyone born in the United States a natural born citizen. You forget that they quoted the Minor V. Happersett definition of natural born citizen that said its definition is NOT found in the Constitution. "Citizenship by birth" is defined by the 14th amendment (or in the Constitution as it says above), but natural born citizen is not (which is reinforced by quoting the Minor case). You really don't understand what you're quoting.