Replies

I had sent this to you privately, but I might as well do this here, too, since you posted the same in our other communication.

Thanks for the link - I had encountered that article before. Two things:

1. Despite what the linked article said, Chester Arthur was well known to have a father who was british - this was a controversy at the time. If necessary for you to believe that, start Googling. You’ll find it was reported in both the local press, the national press, and was enough of a controversy for both the secratary of state and the attorney general of new york to issue opinions on the side of Mr. Arthur. He is by no means the only politician to fall prey to the controversy - look at John Calhoun or Charles Curtis - both Vice Presidents, as Arthur was before ascending to the presidency after the assasination of Garfield.

2. Onto the main piece: Here is the whole applicable citation from Minor:

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

This case actually proves is my point - there are two, and only two types of citizens, native born and naturalized. This also recognizes congress’s right to clarify who is and is not a citizen by birthright, which they did in the US Code I quoted earlier. The part about doubts is directly contemplating the law as it existed prior to the adoption of the 14th ammendment - the case concerning Wong I sent earlier defined it afterwards - namely - that a child with two foreign born parents is still a natural born citizen, provided he was born on american soil.

Want something that’ll blow your mind - From Lynch V. Clarke - where the court talks about the natural born status of a person with two alien parents becoming president. The link to the case is here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=%22alien+parents%22#PPA247,M1