What is a "Natural born citizen"?

2015-11-08T13:28:03-05:00

I'm not being Sarcastic, making a joke, neither meant disrespect. Though I'm taking a humorous look at the Issue.

This is what the Constitution says in Article II Section I. And I quote in part.
"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;..."

The intended Humor is in the following.
Now, Most human beings like ALL other Creatures are born Through a Natural Process or Naturally. Some people in the Modern World were born via C-Section aka. a Cesarean procedure. So I'm guessing that with all the Fuss made and suspicions brought about the current POTUS not being a born citizen. Then maybe someone born via C-Section could also be in jeopardy of not being allowed to be POTUS, 'cause it was "NOT" the Natural but a Medical way. Then there's the other question that comes to mind; What about those "conceived" in Vitro or by Artificial Insemination?

JUST ASKING!

Response by SFC Wade W. made Nov 8 at 2015 1:31 PM

2015-11-08T13:31:17-05:00

Natural Born means being born in the country to citizens of the country. Different era results in different language connotations. My children were born in Germany as a result of my service so a special form needed to be completed to guarantee their citizenship in the US.

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Nov 8 at 2015 1:34 PM

2015-11-08T13:34:14-05:00

That part of the Constitution has nothing to do with the method of birth, but whether the individual was born a citizen of the U.S. or was not. In other words, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.

The Fourteenth Amendment also defines who is a citizen.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2015 1:37 PM

2015-11-08T13:37:40-05:00

It has a has a specific meaning: As you are referring to the United States, I will too. It means someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth without needing to go through a naturalization proceeding to attain citizenship.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 8 at 2015 2:06 PM

2015-11-08T14:06:20-05:00

Duh- They mean no C-Sections.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2015 3:39 PM

2015-11-08T15:39:45-05:00

seriously? it does not matter how, c section or not as long as you are born in US of A , you are a natural born citizen.

Response by MAJ Alvin B. made Nov 8 at 2015 5:50 PM

2015-11-08T17:50:29-05:00

I would submit the method of delivery at birth is not part of the definition, or ever has been. The Constitution has defined, and Congress generally accepted a specific definition. A more detailed review of the topic may be found at the following link in a Harvard Law Review on the subject form 11 Mar 2015:

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

“Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

Response by CDR C. Kerchner made Nov 8 at 2015 7:28 PM

2015-11-08T19:28:22-05:00

The adjective "natural" in this use means by Natural Law, not man-made law. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Nov 9 at 2015 1:21 PM

2015-11-09T13:21:52-05:00

To add more humour to this, children born via In vitro fertilisation are also not qualified for presidency.

Response by MSgt Stephanie McCalister made Dec 8 at 2015 2:01 AM

2015-12-08T02:01:57-05:00

I'm a natural born citizen. My father was stationed in England where he met my mom, and I was born in London England. My original birth certificate, issued by the US Embassy, reads that I'm a 'Child born Abroad of American Citizen', and I have two certificates of birth issued by the US State Department. What this all boils down to is, if I had been so inclined, I could have run for President ... but that's such a limiting thing, since the most I could have done was 10 years under extremely special circumstances ... I much preferred that I served the United States for 22 years as a military service member!

As for your side exploration regarding method of birth, it's not a factor in the equation for becoming POTUS ... but your question did make me wonder enough to raise an alternative interesting question... what about anchor babies? Is it potentially possible that a future POTUS might have been born here only because her or his parents, came to the US illegally?

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Dec 17 at 2015 4:44 PM

2015-12-17T16:44:53-05:00

To get to the root of this answer you must go back to the creation of the Constitution and understand what the authors of that document understood natural born to mean. The Founding Father who is credited with authoring this clause of Article Two is John Jay, who happens to also be the first Supreme Court Justice of the USA. Also, you must inquire why they even bothered to restrict the POTUS in this way.

First there are three types of citizens in our country. You have Natural Born Citizens who are children born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents as defined by nature; these are the only class of citizen that are eligible to be President if they are born after 1787. Then you have Citizens at Birth which you will find in Sec. 301 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (1952) and naturalized citizens who come to our country as immigrants found here, which are ineligible to be President.

Those that framed the Constitution were elated to receive three copies of Vattel' "Law of Nations" book that discussed issues necessary in their pursuit. From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens. We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

Quick summary: To be considered for the Office of POTUS requires that you have no immediate family history from any foreign nation. Your parents mus both be citizens of the nation on the day you are born in the country. That family buffer of US nationality through your immediate preceding generation removes your association with your ancestor's nationality.

One last comment: You must also realize that the 14th Amendment does not give "Anchor Baby" status to the children of foreigners who happen to give birth while inside the border of the USA. There are many, many historical records that talk to that issue. Regarding Amendment 14 of the Constitution there are many sources we can go to help us comprehend the meaning of that sentence,

“Section1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

This amendment was ratified in 1868 and it is much easier for us to research and comprehend what those who authored it meant. Letters back and forth to Members and others still exist in collections. Senator Jacob Howard wrote the 14th. Howard himself told us what it meant. He said,

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the individual state jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else…subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jan 20 at 2016 8:15 AM

2016-01-20T08:15:33-05:00

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 [p168] 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.

Here is the reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

Neither Barack Obama nor Ted Cruz is eligible to be President, no matter where they were born. Neither had two parents who were citizens at the time of their births.

Minor v. Happersett

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains; [n1]

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jan 20 at 2016 8:20 AM

2016-01-20T08:20:32-05:00

People: please provide references for your opinions on this topic, not simply the opinions themselves. Thank you.

Response by 1SG James A. "Bud" Parker made Feb 18 at 2016 12:43 PM

2016-02-18T12:43:45-05:00

Here is what the US Supreme Court has said on what constitutes the meaning of "natural born citizen."

The Supreme Court reference the definition of natural born citizen in 1814 in the opinion The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814). Justice J. Washington of the Supreme Court 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 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."

Justice J. Washington translated the French text of Monsieur De Vattel's The Low of Nations Book 1, Chapter 19, Paragraph Number 212 himself according to the records of the time.

In the Supreme Court decision Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U. S. 242 (1830) we find that the Court directly references the The Law of Nation in the following paragraphs and the concepts of that text.

If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed 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 natural character as a citizen of that country.

It is of importance here that it should be held in view that we are considering political, not moral, obligations. The latter are universal and immutable, but the former must frequently vary according to political circumstances. It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.

The Supreme Court in Scott v Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Justice Daniel in a separate opinion quoted The Law of Nations extensively in his pre-Amendment 14 opinion.

Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, 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 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. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.

Once again the term “natural born citizen” is distinctly referenced.

The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 Chief Justice Waite wrote,

"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."

When one looks at the various types of citizenships that exist in the United States one finds there are three types. A person at birth can be one of two types of citizens in the United States. The third type of citizenship only applies to foreign nationals who become a citizen. The three types are

A natural born citizen is both parents are citizen of the country and the child is born in the country. In the case of the United States you have to be born in one of the 50 States. Remember, Washington, DC is part of the State of Maryland that is on loan to the general government under the provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17. The territories and possessions are not part of the United States. Only the States are actually part of the United States. Congress in 1790 extended this definition and then restored the original definition in 1795. The key is both parents have to be citizens at the time of birth of the child and the child has to be born in the country. And bases in the USA itself are still part of the State in which they are located.

A naturalized citizen is a foreign national who becomes of a citizen of the country. These are people who are covered under the basic rules established by Congress using Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4. When Hawaii became a territory of the USA under Title 8, Section 1405 the citizens of the Republic of Hawaii were declared citizens. They key is the person was never a citizen before and became a citizen. Or you were a citizen and then gave it up and then became a citizen again. I know a case where a women left the USA, became a citizen of Mexico and has been denied US citizenship and is not allowed back in except for short visits to her family. She is extremely anti-USA. I heard about the case in the 1990s.

A native born citizen basically covers all of the other variations. These are the examples and descriptions I have read from the various cases and descriptions.

A child born out of the country of parents who are citizens of the country. This sometimes can create a dual-citizenship status depending upon the country the child is born in. This is John McCain's situation. And yes this means John McCain was not eligible to be President either.

A child born out of the country where one parent is not a citizen of the country and the other parent is. This is classic dual-citizenship status. Some people claim this is Barack Obama Jr's situation and say his mother was too young to pass on USA citizenship. I have not found anything to support this view and in fact have found law indicating she still would have given Barack Obama Jr citizenship - the age is 14 in the law. The evidence at best indicates she was visiting Kenya and had not taken up residence. Even if this is Barack Obama Jr situation he would still not be eligible to be President of the United States of America.
A child born in the country where one parent is not a citizen of the country and the other parent is a citizen. Another case of dual-citizenship. This appears to be Barack Obama Jr's situation based upon the currently publicly available information. Which means he is not eligible to be President. The definition of “natural born citizen” requires both parents be citizens of the country in question.