Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,' and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
It’s unbelievable that anyone is still having to argue the wisdom of the Framers , in excluding persons with divided loyalty at birth, from the WH. Who among us, having watched Obama do his dead level best, for eight interminable years, to destroy this country, can A, argue that Natural Born Citizen means, a person with dual citizenship at birth, and B, that placing people with divided loyalties in the WH is 1, what the Framers intended, and 2, a good thing?
SMH.
And Congress, acting under it’s authority enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 reflects this in current law. USC Title 8 Section 1101 which covers definitions sets up the same binary operation by establishing that naturalization only occurs after birth.
Further, USC Title 8 Section 1401 establishes the criteria one must me to be born a citizen. Those that do not meet these qualifications are not citizens at birth and must be naturalized, again, after their birth. Reflexively, those that meet the conditions are; by the conditions of their birth, they are then “by birth” citizens of the United States naturally without any need for naturalization.
Every time plaintiffs tried to use Minor v Happersett in Obama eligibility challenges they were shot down. Here’s one example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012