This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis.
Steinkauler's father was a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth, just like Ms Elg's parents were. Both were native born (modern usage) and natural born.
BHO Jr's father was not a citizen. So even if he was native born, he was not natural born.
At some point the meanings of "native born" and "natural born" diverged. Prior to that they were pretty much synonomous. Even in Vattel's "Law of Nations" and many later instances, they are considered the same. (Vattel uses "Les Naturels ou Indigenes" to describe those born in a county of parents who are its citizens".
But they no longer are the same, but it's "native born" that has changed. Native born means "born in the country", and thus a citizen by the 14th amendment. Natural born means what it always has.
Nice try, but a bit too much of a parroting of Where native and natural coincide especially Part Two
“But they no longer are the same, but it’s “native born” that has changed. Native born means “born in the country”, and thus a citizen by the 14th amendment. Natural born means what it always has.”
Where do you find legal support for this idea? If anything, I see the opposite - that natural born citizen may well have originally conveyed an idea different from native born, but by the time of Perkins v Elg, had become synonymous.
They are used interchangeably without notice in the decision.
And, for the purposes of this post, I’d be content if folks would agree that well-intentioned folks can honorably disagree on the correct meaning of NBC. At a minimum, I think it is clear that it doesn’t require malicious intent or hatred of country to conclude that the legal definition of NBC does not REQUIRE two citizens as parents.
The arguments for natural born citizen rest on where the natural allegiance of the individual lie. So lets compare Marie with Barry:
1 Marie’s parents were natives of Sweden, naturalized at her birth, who returned to Sweden and renounced US citizenship.
Barry’s parents were a split - born in the USA, and born in Kenya. Barry’s mother never gave up her US citizenship, while his father never claimed it.
2 Marie’s mother moved to Sweden with Marie when Marie was 4, and they both lived there as Swedish citizens for the next 17 years.
Barry’s father was not legally married to his mother, doesn’t seem to have ever lived with her as man & wife, left them completely when he was 2 or 3 and only saw Barry once during the remainder of his life.
3 Marie lived as a Swedish citizen for 17 years, while Barry has no record of ever renouncing US citizenship, and has retained his citizenship his entire life (as best as we can tell from any records). He certainly has never claimed UK or Kenyan citizenship.
So...who has claims of a stronger natural allegiance to the USA, Marie or Barry?
Yes, I agree that Barry is a severely warped individual who believes in Rev Wright’s and Bill Ayer’s teachings...but who would normally have greater natural allegiance to the USA - Marie or Barry?
I think that is how a court would approach this case, and I think the answer is clearly that Barry has more reason to love the USA than Marie had. That he doesn’t is due to his perversion - I don’t know how anyone can read Dreams without concluding that Barry needs serious counseling to help him get over his issues of abandonment, rejection and hatred.
But purely from the facts, who would naturally feel the greatest allegiance to the USA?
OTOH, I grant that I’m not a lawyer and certainly cannot say with certainty how the Supreme Court would approach this.