Right?
Rule: The Constitution distinguishes between a “naturalized” citizen (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 4) and a “natural born citizen” (NBC) (Art II, Sec I, Cl 5). A “naturalized citizen” is not the same thing as an NBC. By definition an NBC doesn’t have to be “naturalized” as a citizen because he is automatically a citizen upon birth.
So there’s some vagueness and ambiguity in the Constitution about this. Obviously Congress cannot “naturalize” an NBC. However, since the Constitution does not define NBC, Congress and/or the courts need to.
Right?
Argument: Nevertheless, Congress HAS legislated that an NBC MAY be in some cases born on foreign soil. Congress has NEVER legislated that an NBC may NOT be born on foreign soil. And for the above reasons, the naturalization statute in Bellei may not apply when the issue is NBC.
That still reasonably leaves open the issue whether an NBC may be born on foreign soil. And again, IMO, either Congress needs to expressly clarify whether an NBC may be born on foreign soil and/or the courts need to tackle individual NBC cases of this sort.
Additional about Bellei: Bellei did not specifically address the issue of his NBC but one can probably infer that he was not an NBC if he was ruled to not be a U.S. citizen.
> Your argument is the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization which is true.
No. My position is that the foreign born children of citizens require naturalization.
> The Constitution distinguishes between a “naturalized” citizen (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 4) and a “natural born citizen” (NBC) (Art II, Sec I, Cl 5). A “naturalized citizen” is not the same thing as an NBC. By definition an NBC doesn’t have to be “naturalized” as a citizen because he is automatically a citizen upon birth.
>
> So there’s some vagueness and ambiguity in the Constitution about this. Obviously Congress cannot “naturalize” an NBC. However, since the Constitution does not define NBC, Congress and/or the courts need to.
Let’s examine that more closely.
Your recitation of Art I, and Art II is correct.
Your claim that “By definition an NBC doesn’t have to be “naturalized” as a citizen because he is automatically a citizen upon birth” introduces the notion
that NBC means “automatically a citizen upon birth”, which is not accurate. NBC means one who is a citizen without operation of law.
> So there’s some vagueness and ambiguity in the Constitution about this.
There is no vagueness or ambiguity.
> Bellei did not specifically address the issue of his NBC but one can probably infer that he was not an NBC if he was ruled to not be a U.S. citizen.
It is a certainty that Bellei is not NBC. Suggesting that there is any possibility whatsoever that a person who is not a citizen is a natural born citizen is absurd.
The consequence of asserting that the foreign born child of a citizen is a natural born citizen for Article II purposes is absurd, for that child - as in Bellei’s case - may not be a citizen.