Also see: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/euler-logic-diagram-shows-logical-relationship-of-constitutional-article-ii-natural-born-citizens-to-other-type-citizens-of-the-united-states/
Posted on 09/20/2020 11:41:43 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
Of course, as are children of non-citizens born on US soil (provided the parents aren't foreign ambassadors or soldiers stationed here).
If the Founders intended only that naturalized citizens could not be president, they would have said so.
That's exactly what they did by specifying NBC.
Dual-Citizenship at birth is obtained as in the case of Harris by having parents who are not U.S. Citizens. So it follows that a dual-Citizen at birth has an issue with not being “born in the USA to parents who were both Citizens”. That is not that hard to understand. And obviously a dual-Citizen at birth is born with divided allegiance requirements on them. Dual-Citizenship at birth begets enate divided allegiances to more than one country at birth, i.e., foreign influence at birth, which is exactly what the founders and framers did not want in any future President and per the 12th Amendment, for the VP. Only being born in the USA to parents who are both citizens at the time of the child’s birth, i.e., a natural born Citizen, can one avoid dual-Citizen as part of your innate citizenhip status at birth. Allegiance is the opposite side of the same coin. When a country grants you its Citizenship you are innately required to give them your allegiance under their laws and form of government. This is a universal international law concept. Citizenship and allegiance go hand in hand.
There are lots of natural born citizens who have exactly zero allegiance to the USA. Most of them are democRats.
Nonsense, you're way overstating it. Vattel addressed international law between nations and in that realm was influential. The framers were primarily concerned with US matters.
“Of course, as are children of non-citizens born on US soil...”
Okay, according to your understanding, a natural born citizen is one born of citizen parents and also one born of non-citizen parents. You must be too dense to understand that the one cancels out the other.
This conversation is over.
Go back to your home country if you can accept American history.
Where does it state that?
(legitimately asking)
My understanding is that there are only two types of citizens.
Those born here, and those naturalized.
I don’t believe there is some stare decisis(did I use that right :)) on what a “natural born citizen” is.
Not necessarily. The parents could be dual citizens themselves, and depending on the country their citizenship could also convey to their children.
And obviously a dual-Citizen at birth is born with divided allegiance requirements on them.
If my mother was a French citizen when I was born, and I received dual French citizenship, what allegiance requirements would I have to France?
The obvious flaw in this argument, as others have pointed out, is every country decides who their citizens are. It would be madness to let other countries decide who's eligible to be the US President.
When a country grants you its Citizenship you are innately required to give them your allegiance under their laws and form of government.
Nonsense on stilts.
Allegiance is something freely given. If not, why bother to have a pledge?
Oh, by the way, Kim Jong-Un just made you a North Korean citizen so you're innately required to give them your allegiance under their laws. It's a universal law concept, after all.
There’s just a lot of opinions. And I would not really look to judges (past or present) to define it. I think this remains a perpetually open question until such time as the US Congress passes legislation that explicitly says: “The term Natural Born Citizen shall be defined as the following ...”
Hasn’t happened yet. May never happen. But it should happen.
Apparently you think everyone is born in the US. Talk about being dense.
Potentially, because the parent's citizenship status has nothing to do with it.
I think the ‘difference’ was that had she been born in the Base Hospital there would have been no problem.
Not sure about your sister etc but JM was born in 1933 or so, so would imagine the USN/USArmy Hospital not really equipped with a real strong Maternity section.
‘Civilians’ were not considered part of the Military etc and like we used to say...
If UnkaSugah wanted you to have a wife, she would have been in the SeaBag with the rest of your necessities and that was still a ‘saying’ in the mid 50s...still not sure if a member of the Military Academies can be married or not???
This nation is a blood country, not a land country. It was done that way on purpose to brake with Europe and the concept of subjects. 1790 provided what they meant by natural born. It means that your blood parents (both) confer citizenship on you no matter where you are born. Since that has nothing to do with naturalization, that was pulled out later. But the definition of what they meant by natural born stands.
If two Chinese come over on a birth tourism visit, have their child and go back to China; do you want that person to be eligible to be President? Or a child born to illegals?
Also see: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/euler-logic-diagram-shows-logical-relationship-of-constitutional-article-ii-natural-born-citizens-to-other-type-citizens-of-the-united-states/
“Apparently you think everyone is born in the US.”
Yes, sure, all six billion people on earth. Some of you snotty people are so stupid.
Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2020: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided No It Was Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret): https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/09/17/constitution-day-17-sep-2020-a-lesson-from-history-is-being-a-born-citizen-of-the-united-states-sufficient-citizenship-status-to-be-president/
Constitution Day - 17 Sep 1787 - Revisit and Learn A Lesson From History. Simply being “born a Citizen” proposed by Alexander Hamilton was rejected. Read more at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3885996/posts
McCain would have likely received a "Record of an American Board Abroad" from the U.S. Consulate; so in effect, his citizenship was recognized at birth.
The same holds true for the vast majority of military personnel that had children, who may have been born while stationed overseas.
I agree it would be stupid to believe so, but apparently you do since it's the only way your comments make sense.
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.