Replies

Madison settled the question more than 200 years ago. A natural born citizen was born of an American citizen father with a domicile in the United States.

An American’s wife at the time was not allowed the right to vote and was folded in with her husband in terms of nationality and culture. In other words it was the man and his domicile that determined whether natural born citizen was conferred.

The term ‘domicile’ is distinct from ‘residence’.

When early Americans were sailing the seas or residing abroad, they were considered loyal to the United States if they maintained a ‘domicile’ INSIDE the United States. They could ‘reside’ abroad but maintain a ‘domicile’ inside the United States. For example, Thomas Jefferson resided in Paris as the US Ambassador while maintaining his ‘domicile’ in Virginia at Monticello.

The question came to Madison as to how to determine citizenship for children born at sea. This was not a rare event as many ocean voyages lasted weeks and months. Secondly, if a man and his family were stationed abroad such as employed in the Foreign Service like a consulate or embassy, then children born abroad of a citizen father were considered natural born.

The natural born requirement originated in correspondence and communication between John Jay and General George Washington. Jay was concerned that Presidents would be Commanders-in-Chief and therefore capable of establishing a tyranny on the people using the Army. The proposal was to ensure ALLEGIANCE and LOYALTY by requiring children to be natural born meaning born to a citizen father and citizen mother. Dual citizenship was never an option in that era. Mothers were expected to fold in with their husbands as to allegiance, loyalty, citizenship, residence and domicile.

A mother needed not be a natural citizen. As soon as she married a US citizen she automatically became a US citizen. Even if she was native Indian, German, English, French etc. she at once became a US citizen through marriage to a US Citizen. Dual citizenship was never an option and divorce was extremely rare so there wasn’t much confusion or conflict as to a married woman’s status.

In light of the 14th Amendment and its abuses, the US Supreme Court and Congress must weigh in at some point to clarify issues of ALLEGIANCE and LOYALTY which are the underlying issues of the term ‘natural born’.

We now have a President whose allegiance and loyalty are questioned. And we have a foreign born candidate whose allegiance and loyalty are above reproach. It’s time for our best jurists, historians and philosophers to work at shining a light on determining in this current era of divorce, independence of women, dual citizenship, ease of migration, fast long distance travel etc. what ensures ALLEGIANCE and LOYALTY in a President, and how to ensure it is successfully transmitted across generations.