On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

Harvard Law Review ^ | Neal Kaytal and Paul Clement

[OddLane]

We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

[scooby321]

Was Ms. Dunham a Citizen of the US?

Of Course

Why did the Clinton's start the birther question?

Why were millions spend on both sides of Obama a citizen or not

Why was it important that he was born in Hawaii instead of Kenya?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”***

I believe the Founding Fathers wanted someone born here because they would be culturally American.

Ted Cruz is culturally American.
Obama is culturally Indonesian moslem.

[erkelly]

You are partially correct, there are indeed natural born and naturalized citizens. But there is a third category: Native born citizens who are people who are born in this country of non-citizen parent(s.) This should be limited to people who are here legally, in the process of obtaining citizenship, and not born to parents here illegally (anchor babies.) I hope that in the future we can bring about an end to anchor baby citizenship. According to the constitution, ARticle II, Section 1, Clause 5, neither native born nor naturalized citizens are eligible to be President, only natural born citizens are.

[taxcontrol]

The naturalization act of 1790 says that a person born to a citizen parent beyond the shores of America shall be as natural born, meaning the same. It is what set the precedence that being born inside the boundaries of the US is NOT a requirement of NBC.

[Godebert]

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Completely Destroyed

[erkelly]

Mitt Romney was born in Michigan, not Mexico. Both of his parents were American citizens. His father, however, was born in Mexico of American parents. Barry Goldwater was born on American soil, albeit a territory, not yet a state. McCain was born on an American military base where his father was active duty military. Each of these men are American citizens at birth, born of two citizen parents. McCain and Goldwater, as determined by congress, did meet the requirement of essentially being born on American soil.

[erkelly]

It does not matter in the slightest that Trump’s mother was born in Scotland, she became an American citizen a couple of years before Trump was born. Trump is just as natural born as any other natural born citizen. He meets all constitutional requirements for the office of president.

[erkelly]

This also is an excellent argument AGAINST anchor babies!

[Godebert]

Congress only has the power of naturalization. They can't legislate who is a natural born Citizen. That is defined by Natural Law.

Regardless, you failed to mention that The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 with the lead of then rep. James Madison and the approval of George Washington and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that a Citizen of the United States was eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution and that thereafter only a natural born Citizen was so eligible. Hence, Congress referring to one as a citizen rather than a natural born citizen, given the presidential eligibility requirements of Article II, was a serious thing.

[HarborSentry]

For what it’s worth:

Neal Kaytal and Paul Clement were both on opposite sides in Guantanamo cases.

Kaytal defended the Gitmo detainees in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, while Clement (as Solicitor General) defended the Bush administration (and the U.S.).

Not too pertinent to this matter, but it caught my eye and I had to say it. I’m not all that fond of Gitmo lawyers.

[Radix]

Which of these 'citizen' types is naturalized?

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident ..."

[AFret.]

Exactly right. You are a citizen at the moment of birth, i.e. “natural born”, or made as if natural, i.e. “naturalized.”

The law specifies certain conditions under which a person is a citizen at the moment of birth, i.e. “natural born.” There are multiple ways to be natural born if not physically born within the 50 United States.

The only exception is being born outside CONUS to “Two citizen parents”..Cruz had one...so did Buckwheat.

[Godebert]

You are correct.

[Godebert]

You have been misinformed.

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

[Uncle Sham]

The Act of 1790 was REPEALED by the Act of 1795 and the term "natural born citizen" was changed to simply "citizen". One of the reasons this was done was because James Madison and George Washington felt that the Congress could not re-define the meaning of what "natural born" was at the time without doing so with an amendment. They decided to revise the language of the previous act instead.

By changing the language from "natural born"" to citizen", they DID set the definition for those who are born to citizens (two citizen parents) outside the jurisdiction or limits of the United States. From 1790 to 1795 this condition gave us the status of "natural born". After 1795, this gave us the status of "citizen".

[taxcontrol]

So by your logic, when newer laws repeal older laws, the newer laws are the ones to be followed .... right.

Then go read title 8 section 1401 which is the CURRENT law. Pay close attention to subsection G.

[Uncle Sham]

this says they are nationals, or citizens at birth. So what. It does not apply to defining what a natural born citizen is.

[absalom01]

I have to hand it to Hillary. The birther trope began within her campaign against Obama, and with at least one eye open as a tool to use against an eventual McCain campaign.

It was brilliant. She somehow knew that the idea, though utterly crazy-pants, would lead to at least some infighting on the right at some point, and man, was she ever right.

William F. Buckley managed to banish the conspiracy theorists to the fever swamps of crazydom, but they’ve come back. Not in droves, but enough to afflict the one constitutional conservative in the race.

Depressing.

[randita]

Logical inconsistencies like that makes republicans/conservatives look like idiots.

I doubt there's a lot of inconsistency. Those who questioned Obama being a natural born citizen are, by and large, the same lot who are questioning that of Cruz (and Jindal and Rubio). They believe erroneously that natural born means born on U.S. soil to parents of whom at least one is a U.S. citizen. Some believe both parents must be citizens to be considered natural born.

The objections to Obama's legitimacy were 1) those who maintained that both his parents needed to be U.S. citizens even though he was born on U.S. soil, 2) he was not born in HI or 3) a combination of 1) and 2).

I never doubted Obama's legitimacy as I hold to the Harvard Law Review's assertion that natural born is the same as citizen at birth (as opposed to naturalized).

[taxcontrol]

Citizen at birth IS the definition of NBC