Remember the reverse occurs in our country’s case. A child born to a U.S. citizen mother while in another country, assumes the mother’s U.S. citizenship by statue (assuming the mother meets the age/residency requirements).
That’s exactly right. My children at any time can apply for English citizenship! My wife later became U.S. citizen so my children meet the two citizen parent clause according to the birthers on this site. My children are eligible to become President and they are eligible to become British Subjects. How crazy is that?
Is the unanimous ruling (not dictum) verbiage from Minor being ingnored in this thread?
Also, the closest thing you have to defining the make up of natural born Citizen is where it did appear in law - the 1790 immigration act. That act declared that those of citizen parents (plural) will be considered as (but it does not say they ARE) natural born Citizens.
The verbiage was later dropped in the 1795 version. Probably because it was recognized that it attempted to redefine the Constitution with law. And that is not doable.
Clearly citizen parents and not location were what was key. In the 1700s it was even easier. You followed your fathers citizenship.
Just asking since these two key items are not part of the discussion. Not trying to create trouble.
“My children are eligible to become President and they are eligible to become British Subjects. How crazy is that?”
*******************
Somehow that would not seem to fit what the framers had i mind in 1790. But back then they did not have deal with a woman’s citizenship.
I don't think so.
I have two grandsons. One was born in England. The other was born here in the U.S.
Both were fathered by a British citizen. Both are being raised by a British father. Both may soon be visiting grandparents in Great Britain.
I don't believe that either one would qualify as a "natural born citizen". I certainly have no doubt that both grandsons will feel an attachment to Great Britain that a "natural born citizen" would not feel.
This situation will not change later simply because my son-in-law decides to become a U.S. citizen.
The person must be a "natural born Citizen." It's the circumstances at Birth. Not what happens later in life (in becoming a natural born Citizen).
Related Supreme Court Cases:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Synopsis: Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’
Note: That quote comes from the 1797 London edition English translation of Vattel's Law of Nations.
Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830)
Synopsis: The majority cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution. The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father. On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Id. 136 and 164. This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830)
Synopsis: same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, stated: “If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.”
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Synopsis: Justice Daniels concurring cites Vattel and The Law of Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, stated: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)
Synopsis: Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the American “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as follows:
“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.” Id., at 167-68.
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which "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," and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared
Page 112 U. S. 102
to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898)
Synopsis: It distinguished between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States.” It relied on the English common law and Calvin’s Case (1608) to hold that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. But concerning a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen,” it cited Minor and quoted its American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen.”
In the House of Representatives
John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.
The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”
Being born with two (or more) allegiances contradicts the known definition and the intent for the "natural born Citizen" requirement for the commander of the armed forces. Obviously.
Only the progressives are interested in changing the meaning.