Native Born vs. Natural Born (vanity)

But the great aunt and uncle are also there. They could have taken her to the hospital in Canada. Why not take her the Washington DOH.

Is it a felony to aid and abet in the misreporting of a birth? If she was living with them, perhaps they would have been asked to affirm. I would be very uneasy were I in such a position.

As far as the “Man in the Mirror” has he posted the Hawaii BC online?

Not that I am aware. I left him a comment asking if he could produce some sort of proof of this, but I have never seen a response. He also writes at the Daily Pen.

Even so, the cold case posse claims to have proof of many cases of the same thing, but have not so far presented it. I can understand why people wouldn't want others looking at their birth certificate, especially if they really have no claim on American citizenship. Who would want to be identified under such circumstances?

With the except of my question about the man in mirror BC, I think the rest will have to wait until more info is available, if there ever is.

Agree.

It sounds like it would have been easier to obtain a US birth certificate in Hawaii then in a US Canadian border town where it was norm for US citizens to cross into Canada to give birth at the only available hospital. A US citizen child born in Canada would have a Canadian issued birth certificate and a U.S. issued Consular Birth Abroad Certificate. Grandma might have wanted to ensure that Barry have US citizenship by registering his birth in Hawaii.
Question: If Barry was born in Canada would that have completely negated his US citizenship because he was the child of a British subject born in Canada? Were Canadians and foreigners born in Canada considered British subjects at that time?

Somewhat late on this post, but I have a few thoughts on the subject. I know that William Arthur who was born in Ireland, was sworn in as an American citizen in 1843. His son Chester was 14 years old at the time. He was married to an American citizen from Fairfield, Vermont.

The Framers of the Constitution may have been well aware of the perils of having a foreign born parent. It is likely that we will never know their exact wishes in this matter.

If indeed they did have any objection to a foreign born parent, this could have been born out by the matter of one Barack Hussein Obama Sr and his son. I use the book by Dr Jerome Corsi, titled "The Obama Nation". Page 102.

If we fast forward to 2006, Obama Junior, by endorsing Raila Odinga during his visit to Kenya, positioned himself to be seen by the Kenyans as an important U.S. senator who was joining forces with his Luo tribal kinsman. "

The then Senator Obama took a very active part in the election campaign which pitted Odinga against Mwai Kibaki a Kikuyu. We learn that when Kibaki won the election, riots broke out and a 1000 people were killed. Odinga was then elevated to the position of Prime Minister to prevent further bloodshed. Senator Obama, then stateside, had telephoned and exhorted an end to the bloodshed. The peril of having a foreign born father was thus born out by this affiliation with the Luo tribe in Kenya.

At the time of the birth of the now president, Canadians were considered subjects of Her Britanic Majesty. Even today there is a brouhaha in Canada with some new minority person, refusing to be sworn in. Sworn in as being loyal to Her Majesty, to take a parliamentary position. He is crying about old time colonial Britain and his country.

My prayers for the Republic in the elections.

I happen to agree with you based on everything I've read thus far, and I find your posts on the subject helpful. Both of my daughters were born before their Mom became naturalized. Now, many would argue that because she had a green card, that she had the "intention" to become and ultimately became a citizen, and therefore my girls are NBC. I can't find that twist anywhere in law. I happen to believe they are, of course, citizens, just certainly not with the distinction of Natural Born citizens. They can travel back to my wife's birth country tomorrow, and have passports issued to them within weeks (or months, things are slow there). To many it's a distinction without a difference. To me, the difference is quite simple; they would not be eligible to be POTUS. And that's the ONLY difference.

I've had this conversation with my lib brother, and he's taken to prove me incorrect while fantasizing my eldest daughter becoming President in 30 years, if only not for big ole meany ME misleading her and her sister to believe their whole lives that it can't (legally) happen based upon what the Constitution provides. He recently pointed me to the following pair of articles at Red State, which I have searched for but not found here on FR. Of course, that the source is "conservative" it is supposed to make me an immediate believer, and apologizer to those that would toss the constitution into the trash at first opportunity. I would love to see some Freeper debate on these articles. But I will settle for your opinion if you'd be interested in reviewing them.

On this “Natural Born Citizen” Issue, Part I: From Alexander Hamilton to Lynch v. Clarke By: Jake (Diary)

On this “Natural Born Citizen” Issue, Part II: From William Learned Marcy to Wong Kim Ark By: Jake (Diary)

Thanks for any comments. btw: This is the very first time that I've managed to post links on FR that actually work.

Your understanding of eligibility to be president is inaccurate. There is a difference in the meaning of natural vs native born citizenship in the U.S.. Native born refers to being born of the land. Natural born is being born to parents that were both citizens prior to the child’s birth.
If you thoroughly read the eligibility clause as in....
“Natural born, OR (inferring equality) living in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”, June 21, 1787
On June 21, 1787 that first day of our nation all people living in the U.S., became U.S. citizens by default.
Obviously in the years beyond, all of those living here at the time of the adoption of the Constitution would eventually pass on.
At that point in time “Natural Born” would have to be equivalent to the U.S. citizen status on June 21, 1787, where all people living in the U.S. on that day were all U.S. citizens.
Natural born then means being born of parents that are both U.S. citizens. As long as parents are naturalized citizens before the child’s birth, that child is a Natural Born citizen.
The framers were concerned with foreign influence in the highest office, President of the U.S.
Naturalized citizens must take the oath of allegiance to the US, and renounce allegiance to any other foreign country. This allegiance provides confirmation that the only allegiance is now to the United States of America.
Natural born also means to be born with that allegiance.

Here is a WW I draft card issued by the US government in 1917:

You will notice four categories pertaining to citizenship.

1) Natural born
2) Naturalized
3) Citizen by virtue of father's naturalization before majority
4) Alien

Now, as pertains to persons born in the United States prior to 1899 (the registrant class) - If you were never naturalized, and if your father was an alien when you turned 21, but you were recognized by your city, state, and the Federal government as a citizen entitled to vote and to hold office (this applies to both of my own grandfathers) - doesn't that only leave "natural born" as the category for persons born in the US, regardless of their parent's citizen status?

>> “Natural born, OR (inferring equality) living in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”, June 21, 1787 <<

Right. Natural-born, or immigrant. The difference between “natural-born” and “native-born” is very subtle: “Native-born citizen” means born in the U.S.A.; “Natural-born citizen” means citizen by birth, which includes those who are citizens because they were born on U.S. territory, but also some of those who were born of U.S. citizens who were overseas.

>> U.S. citizen status on June 21, 1787, where all people living in the U.S. on that day were all U.S. citizens. <<

No, it would exclude immigrants.

>> Natural born also means to be born with that allegiance. <<

So according to your theory, at what point do children of non-citizen immigrants express their allegiance? They are neither natural, nor naturalized.

Many use Vattel’s work, “The Law if Nations” to explain and confirm the meaning of Natural Born status. The fact is that the Eligibilty clause already states that Natural Born must be equivalent to the second part of the clause....
Natural Born OR (Implying equivalency) living in the country at the time of the adoption of Constitution.
On June 21, 1787, the first day of our nation, all persons living in the country on that day became U.S. citizens by default.
So then, Natural Born citizen status must be equivalent to the first US citizens of June 21, 1787. So as long as they were at least 35 years of age they were eligible to be elected POTUS.
Why didn’t the framers insert “Native Born citizen, or just “citizen”, or why any clause at all? They chose the term “Natural Born” after Jon Jay expressed concern to George Washington about allowing foreign influence into the office of POTUS.
So why would the Eligibility clause be interpreted so loosely? It is the highest office in the United States of America and should be held only by someone that has no potential foreign influence and full allegiance only to the U.S..

Marco Rubio was Born in 1971. His parents were residing here legally, but did not become citizens until 1975. Marco Rubio is a native born citizen, not natural born and is NOT eligible to run for POTUS, but he attempted to do so in 2016.
Ted Cruz was Born in Canada. His father was not a U.S. citizen. Though his mother was a U.S. citizen, she chose to move to Canada where Ted was Born. Ted holds dual citizenship and has potential foreign influence from his father and is not eligible to run for POTUS.
Obama was not eligible to be POTUS. He was the first president elected that did not have two U.S. citizen patents.

In my reference I am speaking only to the Constitutions’ Eligibility clause and who and who is not eligible. The idea is not to have even the potential of foreign influence
Any U.S. citizen can run for any local or federal office except for POTUS. The requirement for all other elected officials is minimally to be a naturalized citizen. The oath of allegiance is taken during naturalized process that swears allegiance ONLY to the U.S. and renounces allegiance to the former country. A naturalized citizen could have their citizenship revoked and be deported.

Eligibility requires the highest level of allegiance. Potential foreign influence was a great concern of the framers. Jon Jay sent his concerns to George Washington about allowing foreign influence in the highest office POTUS. “Natural Born” was then added to the Eligibility clause.
Again, in the case of Eligibility to be POTUS, Native Born is being born of the soil, Natural Born is being born to citizens of the US. A child born to US parents that are military or US diplomats are born to citizens and therefore Natural Born. In the case of Ted Cruz his mother chose to move to Canada where Ted was born. Ted minimally has dual citizenship and could have had potential foreign influence

The native born citizen could be born to two parents that are not citizens, but the parents were legally residing in the U.S. If BOTH PARENTS are U.S. citizens either Natural Born, Native Born or naturalized, or any combination thereof, their child would be a natural born citizen.

A native born citizen has potential foreign influence from the NON US citizen parent. So it is not as much as verbally expressing allegiance, as being born of US citizen parents. Even a natural born citizen could turn on their own country, but it’s the highest level of allegiance.

Natural born must be equivalent to the second part of the Eligibility clause.... Natural Born or living in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, June 21, 1787 when all became US citizens by default. On that day they went from being immigrants to US citizens. Natural born status must be equivalent to the status of citizens on the first day of our nation.

My last point would be, as Americans why would we so loosely interpret the Eligibility clause to think that natural and native born are the same.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.