On my challenge, by the ancient laws of combat...
...we are met at this chosen ground...
...to settle for good and all...
...who holds sway, over the Five Points.
Us Natives, born rightwise to this fine land....
...or the foreign hordes defiling it!
Under the ancient laws of combat I accept the challenge of the so called Natives.
You plague our people at every turn!
But from this day out, you shall plague us no more!
Let it be known, that the hand that tries to strike us from this land...
...shall be swiflty cut down!
Then may the Christian Lord, guide my hand, against your Roman popery!
Prepare to receive the true Lord!
/johnny
Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead and likely to remain that way, we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? It is a matter of allegiance.
A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.
If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent. (*)
Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.
(*)[footnote: Also, in their time, the rules of royal succession held sway throughout much of the world and the Founders wished to forestall any potential claims by the crowned heads of Europe or their scions to sovereignty in the US.]
The closer you get to the Founders on the timeline, the more perspicuous the true intended meaning of “natural born” appears. As recently as the 1880’s, the viability of Chester A. Arthur’s candidacy was doubted because his true birthplace was suspected of being in Dunhan, Quebec, where his father moved the family briefly.
I believe birthplace was considered critical in determining natural born status by the Founders and the generations which followed.
Isn’t the definition of “natural born citizen” set by law, not opinion polls? Why should opinion matter?
I wish similar polls were available from the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. to see how our understanding and beliefs have changed.
Legal definition of citizenship by polling the affected individuals.
What a unique means at arriving at a point of “settled law”.
“Natural born” is one of those terms that is expanded or twisted to mean what the speaker seems to want it to mean.
A child of parents who are NOT citizens of the nation in which the child is born actually falls into two categories. One is of which the parents are only transients, either as tourists or as temporary visitors, and the parents have no intention of becoming permanent residents or proceeding to naturalized citizenship at a later date. The other category applies to those parents who have migrated here with the intention of becoming citizens and are at present residing here to meet the residency requirements for naturalization.
Persons who arrive within US borders, who are neither some kind of refugees from persecution in their home country, nor with intent to become a permanent resident and a naturalized citizen at some time in the future, cannot, and should not, claim the birthright for their children, without the children also undergoing the same requirements for naturalization that is required for all other applicants for that objective.
Those parents who have immigrated according to all the legal standards set by Congress, and upheld as a Constitutionally acceptable statute, with intent to become citizens at some time in the future, may be granted the opportunity to have any children born while on US soil choose US citizenship, or to have citizenship revert to the nationality of the parents, at the child’s option. “Anchor babies”, born of parents who do not have clear legal status as either legal residents, or on a path to legally defined naturalized citizenship, would become a meaningless term.
No more anchor babies. Every child born here should have the same citizenship status as their parents. Period.
So does “natural born” remain a matter of opinion and not definitively spelled out anywhere?
Who the h are these 5%???
it’s very simple.
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... as there are no alternatives at birth.
cruz is as eligible as 0bama. just like rubio.
I won’t argue over the definition other than to say neither Obama or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens.
I am. Do I get a prize?
Gee, I don’t recall this topic ever being discussed before on FR. /s
Not me, I was a C-section.
The only things being born here of two citizen parents should give you the right to is residency and a chance to take a citizenship test at the age of maturity. Citizenship is too precious to just be given away. It should be earned and maintained.
This very well illustrates the hypocrisy of Democrats as they deem Obama a Natural Born Citizen no matter what his lineage or place of birth, but impose of much stricter standard on Cruz, Rubio and Jindal when their names are mentioned as presidential contenders.
My interest is in the beliefs of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States. I have a belief that the practices of certain things of my native country England were taken into account. There was a horror and revulsion on the methods of execution of criminals in England. "No cruel and unusual punishment" I believe was the edict on sentencing criminals.
Kings of England as follows.
George Ist. Born Hanover. Germany.
George 11. Born Hanover. Germany.
George 111. Born England.
All three men had wives born in Germany, I believe.
I have observed the attitude of the now President of the United States. I would mention that his father was a British Subject of East Africa, later of the Republic of Kenya. His step father was a subject of Indonesia.
The Framers of the Constitution were not amenable to outside influences on any future President. They had good reason.