Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your quote addresses another issue. It addresses jus sanguinis, not jus soli Either one is enough to make you a natural born US citizen. Whether or not he was at the same time regarded a British citizen according to British jus sanguinis law is irrelevant. If his parents had been British diplomats, things might be different.
Your quote addresses another issue. It addresses jus sanguinis, not jus soli Either one is enough to make you a natural born US citizen. Whether or not he was at the same time regarded a British citizen according to British law is irrelevant.
No. The SCOTUS decision is quite clear; it even refers to those born within the jurisdiction without regarding parents' citizenship status as 'citizens' only, not 'natural born' citizens.
The full discussion says that while children of 2 US citizens parents are definitely natural born there is debate over whether all children born in US, regardless of parents status, are also natural born. The judge says "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." In other words - the court did not rule on the natural born definition.
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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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.
Note: MINOR v. HAPPERSETT was about a woman's right to vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.