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.
A natural born citizen or natural citizen is someone who is considered a United States citizen from birth. Unlike naturalized citizens, natural born citizens do not need to apply for any of the rights of citizenship. They are granted the right to vote at 18, along with all of the other rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship in the United States. In addition, natural born citizens are permitted to run for the positions of President and Vice-President, while naturalized citizens are excluded from these roles in American government by law.
There are two different ways in which a natural born citizen can be created. By American law, all people born on American soil are considered natural born citizens. In addition, people who are born overseas to American parents are also classified as natural born citizens.
People who are born on American soil are said to have the right of jus soli, and this right is protected in the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution, which specifically states that “all persons born in the United States...are citizens of the United States.” Jus soli has become a topic of hot discussion in some areas of the United States, because this right is also extended to children born of foreign parents, whether or not they are in the country legally. In the case of children born to illegal immigrants, some people use the derogatory term “anchor baby” to describe a child who is a natural born citizen, under the mistaken belief that illegal immigrants will not be deported if their children are considered American citizens.
For children born abroad, the principle which applies is jus sanguinis, or “rule of the blood,” and the rules can get a bit tricky. If a child is born to two parents who are both American citizens, the case is usually clear, and the parents need only apply for a United States passport on the child's behalf to ensure that his or her citizenship is formally recognized. If only one parent is an American citizen, however, jus sanguinis may or may not apply, and the case must be considered before the child is classified as a natural born citizen.
In situations where only one parent is a United States citizen, he or she must have lived in the United States for at least five years at some point before the child's birth as a full American citizen, and at least two of these five years must have occurred after the parent's 14th birthday. In the case of a child born to an American mother, the child is usually considered a natural born citizen, whether or not the mother is married. However, if an American father is involved in a relationship with a foreign woman and the couple is not married, the father may need to fight for the child's right to citizenship
Obama was born in Hawaii, making all of the above irrelevant.
There is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause. There are several former VPs, major party nominees, and major candidates who would not have been eligible for office under your interpretation, and none of them were seriously challenged for office on the basis that they had a foreign parent.
Quote:
Several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the 14th Amendment acknowledge citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, but only recognize the 'natural born citizen' status of children who were born to U.S. citizens. The cases affirm merely the status of 'citizen' to the children born to aliens [The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873), Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874), Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939)].
Among other things, your quote here blatantly misinterprets the Supreme Court's ruling in Wong Kim Ark, which explicitly stated:
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 658 (1898).
The typical birther at this point will say at this point "But if you CTRL-F through the case, you will not see the court say 'Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen!'" This misunderstands the case and shows a complete lack of understanding of how courts operate.
For starters, the dissenters knew full well that the majority stated that anybody born in the US, regardless of parentage, was a natural born citizen:
Quote:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
169 U.S. at 715.
Justice Fuller knew that Gray's majority had just stated that from the beginning of the Constitution, anybody born in the US was a natural born citizen.
Insult a candidate for POTUS by requiring him or her to meet all the Constitutional requirement?
Where in the constitution does it say that a candidate for POTUS/VP needs to release school records, baptism certificates, client lists, and other such nonsense that the birthers want?
or have you just recently found some new evidence?
Right.
Everyone knows that Obama is not US born. It is almost laughable for him to continue to state otherwise.
However, with real unemployment at 20% and US jobs going overseas, no one really cares about his country of origin. People are more concerned with his lack of competence and leadership in dealing with the real issues that face the nation.
It appears as though all the experience on accumulates as a law professor and a community organizer does not effectively prepare one for the white house. Hopefully our next leader will be one with real buisness experience who will understand our most important issue. Those issues are not gay marriage, gays in the military and free healthcare for the40 million "uninsured". The real issues are
jobs
the economy
the debt
trade imbalances
illegal immigration
Those who cannot deal with the above real issues tend to focus on non issues as a diversion. Dump Obama and let him join the democratic congress in the unemployment line. He should have plenty of company, as he has put many Americans there.
Neither the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, nor the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision has found one born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent to be a "natural born citizen."
Quote:
Akeny vs The Govenor of the State of Indiana
That state ruling was a bizarre anomaly. The rationale for that decision was not grounded in historical fact, and made little sense.
Quote:
The law and 200 years of case history.
Not at all. For starters, cite the law that specifically states that a child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent is a "natural born citizen."
Neither the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, nor the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision has found one born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent to be a "natural born citizen."
False:
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 658 (1898).
Quote:
That state ruling was a bizarre anomaly. The rationale for that decision was not grounded in historical fact, and made little sense.
False. It was a unanimous ruling of the court, and if it was such a bizarre anomaly, why did the state Supreme Court refuse to hear the case? How come birthers haven't tried their luck in other state courts, if the Indiana court's decision "made little sense?"
Quote:
Not at all. For starters, cite the law that specifically states that a child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent is a "natural born citizen."
Courts and constitutional scholars throughout the country have known it since the ratification of the Constitution.
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.
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.
