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.
The constitution makes this a requirement for the presidency. But what does it mean? Can you be born in Canada to a US citizen like Cruz? Can you be an anchor baby? What about born by C-section like Chelsea? I think it means what it says - natural birth to two US citizens in the US.
It is someone who didn't need become a naturalized US citizen like Cruz did in 2014. I'm surprised that there weren't law suits all over the place.
An anchor baby, where neither parent is a US citizen during the birth, would not make the baby an American.
i'm proof that this isn't true. both of my parents were resident aliens at the time of my birth and i have always been a US citizen ( and dual-citizen up until my early 20's ).
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Except for illegitimate children of servicemen. US servicemen can sleep around overseas and the resulting children are only US citizens if the father acknowledges the child and agrees to support it.
do you have a link to this rule? i'd be curious to see it. my belief would be that as long as the mother could prove paternity the child would gain US citizenship thru jus sanguinis but..... there may be an exception for military.
It is someone who didn't need become a naturalized US citizen like Cruz did in 2014.
cruz didn't naturalize in 2014. he's had US citizenship since birth ( jus sanguinis ). he renounced his canadian citizenship in 2014, it had no affect on his US citizenship.
Quote:
I'm surprised that there weren't law suits all over the place.
there were many lawsuits arguing cruz's eligibility. all have been rejected or dismissed to date.
Last edited by wrecking ball; 05-11-2016 at 11:15 AM..
Natural born is one of those vague phrases that needs to be defined by our congress.
Natural born citizen to me, means that when you were born, no matter the geographical location, you are an American citizen if one of your parents was an America citizen.
An anchor baby, where neither parent is a US citizen during the birth, would not make the baby an American.
A naturalized citizen is one who was not born an American, but filed the proper paperwork thru the immigration process, and was sworn in as a US citizen.
The US Congress has written legislation and US Amendments with vague wording, which has been misinterpreted, twisted and distorted, sometimes for political or monetary gain, so that we citizens no longer have any control over who is, and who is not, granted US citizenship.
Congress doesn't define the Constitution SCOTUS does. It would be great if they would grant a writ and answer the question already. The issue is how politicized we've made it. We have cases about natural born circling Obama and Cruz. This would be too political to tackle.
I've gone into this in another thread. The ramifications of dual (or more) citizenship at birth, and why that precludes the status of natural born citizen for Constitutional purposes...
The problem is that being born outside the U.S. in a country with birthright citizenship, and/or to a foreign citizen parent (regardless of birth location, U.S. or abroad) whose country of nationality has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship laws regardless of place of birth, automatically confers conflicting citizenship and allegiance, which sets up a host of other problems.
The only thing that matters and the reason why those born a dual (or more) citizen are precluded from eligibility for POTUS via the natural born citizen clause is because the Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the foreign country has the valid legal right to assert their country's laws upon the born dual (or more) citizen individual at any time regardless of where they are, worldwide.
Prime example: the U.S. citizens impressed into service for the British Royal Navy leading up to the War of 1812. Many if not most of those men were born in the U.S. to at least one parent who had formerly been a British subject and were therefore dual U.S. and British citizens at birth. They were subject to British law even if they had never left the U.S., and the UK had (and still has) the legal international right to enforce their own laws on their own subjects/citizens regardless of worldwide location.
The US State Dept to this day warns about this very same problem afflicting any and all who were born dual citizens or later become dual citizens at some point in their life:
Quote:
"Each country has its own nationality laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.
...The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there."
What happens when a foreign country similarly impresses a born dual citizen POTUS into service for them, as they most certainly would have the legal right to do under international law?
That's what the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid with the 'natural born citizen' requirement. They wanted POTUS to have no split, dual, or otherwise compromised allegiance from birth to prevent that possibility.
Pretty simple, really. And extremely reasonable to require a POTUS and the Commander in Chief of our military to have 100% allegiance to the U.S. from birth, with no competing/conflicting foreign claims on his/her allegiance or service.
do you have a link to this rule? i'd be curious to see it. my belief would be that as long as the mother could prove paternity the child would gain US citizenship thru jus sanguinis but..... there may be an exception for military.
5. The child’s parents were unmarried when the child was born. Only the child’s father is a U.S. citizen. Before the child’s birth, the father lived for at least five years in the U.S. At least two of those years were when the father was older than 14. Time living abroad while on active duty in the U.S. military counts as time living in the U.S. Before the child’s 18th birthday, the father legitimated the child:
• through marriage, or
• through the appropriate legal process in the country where either the child or the father lived.
Or the father acknowledged paternity in writing under oath, or paternity was established by a competent court, and the father agreed in writing to financially support the child until the child turned 18.
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.
