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.
To which you agreed:
Yes, but they are not "natural-born" citizens. They can be of foreign origin and naturalized (not eligible to be President) and they can be of foreign parents and born here (the point at issue...citizens by law only, and not "natural").
I then go back to quote I shared before, which was from the very first link you sent me. I assume that you had this link as a primary reference because it's one that you consider the most reputable source:
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
Thus, Barack Obama, being a citizen by law at birth (your words) due to the fact he was born on US soil, and had no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time, would also be considered a natural born citizen.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright
The 14th Amendment actually says "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." Citizens...not "natural-born citizens."
Should I make it more explicit? "Natural-born citizens" are a subset of "citizens." Not all "citizens" are "natural-born citizens." What you are trying to argue is that they are only the same thing, which is not true---according to the international law of the times in which the phrase was invoked.
"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."
Correct. They are citizens. Obama was a citizen at birth. Hence a natural-born citizen
Not all "citizens" are "natural-born citizens."
Also correct. Citizens who are citizens at birth are natural born citizens. Citizens who have to go through a naturalization process (such as immigration) are not natural born citizens.
What you are trying to argue is that they are only the same thing, which is not true
I agree, they are not the same thing
All natural born citizens are citizens. Not all citizens are natural born citizens
I never saw an identification of that ashram. In your view, it must not exist.
It could still exist, but it does cast doubt on the story if there's no name of the school so that we can verify it. Otherwise, I'm just taking you at your word, and so far you've shown that you don't do your due diligence when it comes to research.
But there is no question he traveled on what could only have been an Indonesian passport,
I'm not sure what is the nail in the coffin for that. That he went to an indonesian school for a period of time? As my understanding goes, you can travel there if you have a valid passport.
I think we were really talking about the definition of "natural-born citizen" per "The Law of Nations." Strange how we diverted from that.
I'm happy to keep talking about that! You were the one who changed the subject when I again defined a natural born citizen (a person who is a citizen at birth without having to go through a naturalization process later) and mentioned Chester A Arthur and you responded:
There is a strong presumption (listed as being an Indonesian citizen in school records, traveling on an Indonesian passport) that his U.S. citizenship was abandoned to become an Indonesian citizen. Citizenship can be forsworn, you know. There is also the lively controversy about him being born in Kenya, as Kenyans like to claim.
But I guess it is easier not to question the mainstream narrative. Funny behavior on this site.
Totally changing the subject to the whole Indonesia thing.
So, if you'd like to revert back to talking about natural born citizens, I'm happy to! I was only following your lead.
I guess if you pick your favorite definition, you can have it your way. I am simply pointing to the definition in place (in international law) at the time the Constitution was written. The objective was to deny office to those who by birth might have an allegiance or obligation to a foreign power. You realize that you have eliminated this purpose.
The Indonesian school record was official. A facsimile image was shown in the Wikipedia article.
I'm not really keen on just trusting wikipedia with whatever anyone puts up. What did the school have to say about it themselves?
Shoot me for not remembering a fine detail about the Pakistani school.
The year the school was founded would be a "fine" detail. The name of the school is not a fine detail. It's a very basic detail. If we don't even know the name of the school, there's no way to verify if these records are legitimate
I must take it that you accept no one's general information.
This is shown in the Wikipedia entry, but they wave it away as "an error."
Well, wikipedia can be edited by anyone at all. Where does the documentation come from? Is it from any official record?
Then it is known that he traveled to Pakistan as a teenager, to attend an Islamic school of some sort. He would not have had a U.S. passport, only an Indonesian one.
"Would not" is speculation. "Did not" would be something that's based on facts. Did he or did he not have a US passport?
Similarly, "school of some sort" is also speculation. What was the name of the school?
There is also the video interview (I've seen it) where he alludes to "my Muslim faith."
This would have no relevance to citizenship, as faith is not a requirement for citizenship
Also, forgive me, but since I don't know you, you just saying "I've seen it" isn't really that significant to me.
Earlier in the conversation I said this:
To which you agreed:
I then go back to quote I shared before, which was from the very first link you sent me. I assume that you had this link as a primary reference because it's one that you consider the most reputable source:
Thus, Barack Obama, being a citizen by law at birth (your words) due to the fact he was born on US soil, and had no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time, would also be considered a natural born citizen.
I will also point to this article:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen#:~:text=Under%20the%2014th%20Amendment's%20Naturalization,referred%20to%20as%20birthright%20citizenship.
The 14th Amendment actually says "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." Citizens...not "natural-born citizens."
Should I make it more explicit? "Natural-born citizens" are a subset of "citizens." Not all "citizens" are "natural-born citizens." What you are trying to argue is that they are only the same thing, which is not true---according to the international law of the times in which the phrase was invoked.
Correct. They are citizens. Obama was a citizen at birth. Hence a natural-born citizen
Also correct. Citizens who are citizens at birth are natural born citizens. Citizens who have to go through a naturalization process (such as immigration) are not natural born citizens.
I agree, they are not the same thing
All natural born citizens are citizens. Not all citizens are natural born citizens
It could still exist, but it does cast doubt on the story if there's no name of the school so that we can verify it. Otherwise, I'm just taking you at your word, and so far you've shown that you don't do your due diligence when it comes to research.
I'm not sure what is the nail in the coffin for that. That he went to an indonesian school for a period of time? As my understanding goes, you can travel there if you have a valid passport.
I'm happy to keep talking about that! You were the one who changed the subject when I again defined a natural born citizen (a person who is a citizen at birth without having to go through a naturalization process later) and mentioned Chester A Arthur and you responded:
Totally changing the subject to the whole Indonesia thing.
So, if you'd like to revert back to talking about natural born citizens, I'm happy to! I was only following your lead.
I guess if you pick your favorite definition, you can have it your way. I am simply pointing to the definition in place (in international law) at the time the Constitution was written. The objective was to deny office to those who by birth might have an allegiance or obligation to a foreign power. You realize that you have eliminated this purpose.
It was the Pakistani school we were talking about
I'm not really keen on just trusting wikipedia with whatever anyone puts up. What did the school have to say about it themselves?
The year the school was founded would be a "fine" detail. The name of the school is not a fine detail. It's a very basic detail. If we don't even know the name of the school, there's no way to verify if these records are legitimate
Correct. I look at the facts that are available.
Well, wikipedia can be edited by anyone at all. Where does the documentation come from? Is it from any official record?
"Would not" is speculation. "Did not" would be something that's based on facts. Did he or did he not have a US passport?
Similarly, "school of some sort" is also speculation. What was the name of the school?
This would have no relevance to citizenship, as faith is not a requirement for citizenship
Also, forgive me, but since I don't know you, you just saying "I've seen it" isn't really that significant to me.
It's not about favorite definition, it's the precedent set by the wording of the constitution and subsequen rulings by congress and the supreme court.
But either way, going by your definition, Obama would be the second non natural-born citizen president of the US.
Why is it only a huge deal now?
Chester A Arthur would be the first non-natural born president of the US. His father was not a US citizen.
Probably because he was born in the USA, and, thus, was a citizen at birth.