“Since natural born citizenship pertains only to one’s status at the time of one’s birth [07], the only ‘foreigners’ that the ‘natural born citizen’ provision can possibly exclude from the presidency are persons who are ‘foreigners’ at birth.’”
This part of your argument is a tautology. While I do have to agree your argument about foreign influence is valid because it deals with intent, your conclusive statement above is circular reasoning. Of course someone who is born a foreigner and becomes a US citizen cannot also be a natural born citizen. There are two kind of citizens: naturalized and natural born. Naturalization is the process of making a foreigner a citizen. The only question is whether being born abroad automatically makes someone a foreigner according to the founders’ original intent.
The problem with your argument is that it forces the awkward position of calling the first act of naturalization in 1790 an unconstitutional act even though it was enacted by the same founders who ratified the Constitution 18 months earlier. This means the consensus among the founders must have been that “natural” when it pertains to citizenship at birth is based on Vattel’s perspective — Jus sanguinis, and NOT Jus soli.
Being born abroad does not automatically make someone a foreigner. Indians were “natives”, i.e. natural born, but not citizens because of jurisdiction. If a citizen is abroad, they still owe allegiance to their homeland unless their citizenship is renounced (or in some cases stripped from them). Vattel says that children “naturally” follow the condition of their father’s at birth. This would make children born of US citizens abroad natural born citizens if their citizenship is recognized at birth.
“When President Obama was born, he was a ‘foreigner’ according to the 18th century meaning of the term: he acquired foreign nationality (in addition to a U.S. citizenship) at birth [08].”
Clearly Obama’s upbringing is foreign. His loyalty to this country was questionable from the start. Now his actions have proved he is unquestionably disloyal to this nation. However, the issue of Obama being a natural born citizen for him is not as cut and dry as you make it. Yes, according to the 18th century meaning in which citizenship is naturally passed from the father, you are correct. But it is not making the Constitution a living document to point out that the Constitution itself has been amended in regard to the role of women. Women now vote, own property, and hold public office. If the laws of naturalization recognize US citizenship conveyed by either parent, then such citizenship is being conferred “naturally” even by Vattel (even though Vattel identified father’s in particular, Vattel also refers to the citizenship of the parents).
Cruz and Obama both received their citizenship under the naturalization act of 1952. Cruz was born abroad, but his mother met the residency requirements for him to be born a citizen. He did not need to naturalize. Obama, on the other hand, was only a citizen at birth IF he was born on US soil because his mother did NOT meet the requirements of this act.
Bottom line, the act in 1790 makes the original intent of the founders clear when it comes to natural born citizens. They understood “natural” to be, not based on British common law, but according to natural law as described by Vattel.
Cruz is a citizen because his mother is but he is not a NBC because his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth
hree Theories: Today, there are three conflicting theories regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution:
The citizenship-at-birth theory defines “natural born citizen” as anyone who acquires U.S. citizenship at the time of her or his birth [14]. In the Naturalization Act of 1790, the phrase “natural born citizen” is used only in reference to children who are U.S. citizens at birth; persons who become U.S. citizens after they are born are considered merely as “citizens” [15].
The birthplace-only theory asserts that every child born on U.S. soil (except the child of a foreign diplomat or enemy invader) is automatically a U.S. natural born citizen, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of the child’s parents. The phrase “natural born”, as used in the Constitution, appears to originate from 18th century English law. Nearly all children born on English soil were, at birth, “natural-born” subjects of the king, regardless of whether their parents were English or alien.
The exclusive-citizenship theory (also called the two-parent theory) defines “natural born citizen” as one who, at birth, is a citizen of the United States exclusively and is not a citizen or subject of any foreign country. The only way to guarantee exclusive U.S. citizenship at birth is to be born on U.S. soil, of parents who are both citizens of the United States exclusively. Birth in a foreign country, or birth to a foreign-citizen parent, leaves open the possibility of foreign nationality at birth [16].
The citizenship-at-birth theory is mentioned here only for sake of completeness.