Just thinking out loud.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (108)
sorted by:
Where you are born does not matter. What matters is having two citizen parents at the time of birth.
This (seems to be) incorrect.
(EDIT: It looks like I have not understood. Discussion should continue, as opinions are divided, but the issue does indeed appear to clinched by having two citizen parents (or a father who was a citizen, in which case the mother may well also be a citizen under common law 'coverture') rather than where one is born. Leaving my original comment here, for the discussion, but I think I was incorrect.)
There are potentially several paths to becoming a "natural born citizen". The main one is being born in the United States and not requiring any other naturalization process to become a citizen.
Apparently, there is some uncertainty whether someone born outside of the US jurisdiction but of one or two American citizen parent(s) and is a citizen at birth qualifies as "natural born citizen".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
In Harris' case, she needs the certificate that she was born on US soil (under US jurisdiction), because neither of her parents was a US citizen when she was born.
(also https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen)
WRONG…
There was no need for the US Constitution to define Natural-Born Citizen, because the authors of the 14th Amendment understood the term’s meaning was already well understood.
Like the term “ARMS” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 2nd Amendment, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 14th Amendment.
That said, John Bingham — the lead author of the 14th Amendment — he still told everyone precisely how “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” is to be understood while he discussed the term on the congressional floor. In other words, the “definition” came directly from the author of the 14th Amendment:
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680
HIGHLIGHTS:
John Bingham | A Matter of Allegiance
"To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth -- natural-born citizens. There is no such thing as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." [Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 37th Congress, 2nd Session]
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” [Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session]
“…OF PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY…”
This is a moot point. In reality, any federal court will view Harris to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be president because she was born on US soil.
Thanks for the reply.
That's very interesting, indeed, and I appreciate the sourcing, etc.
However, I think I disagree on one point:
There is a problem here, because although the authors of the amendment may well have 'understood' (meaning that they ascribed a certain defined meaning to it) the term or expression (although i do not know if "natural-born citizen" was an existing term at the time, like "arms" was in 1776), they are not alive today.
This is why the Supreme Court exists: to interpret and further define constitutional issues if and when they arise.
So, if Bingham et al intended for this to be the definition: "all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens" then it would seem the definition needs to be reinforced by the SC, because those words themselves are NOT in the constitution or the law (amendment).
The "arms" question to. Does the right to bear arms include any and all implementation usable for either defense or attack? Does the constitution guarantee a citizen's right to develop and posses nuclear weaponry, for example?
I'm asking this because HOW these terms are understood and implemented in the current and future times would seemingly need further definition. (I'm absolutely pro-2nd by the way, der. I'm just querying how to approach and understand the issues involved).
I can accept that Bingham et al intended "natural born citizen" to mean (as you have quoted above), BUT, it appears that has not been sufficiently defined in the modern era, and there is a need for the SC to adjudicate, in order to make it clear.
I suppose the issue has never really been challenged in terms of the modern era. It's noteworthy that if such a definition was upheld, then Obama would be ineligible regardless of whether his birth certificate was legit or not, because his father was Kenyan.
In any case, thanks for the excellent dig.
Essentially, in addition to saying “NO SPLIT ALLEGIANCES”, Bingham also stated, “NATURALIZED = ADOPTED”; Bingham never asserted “NATURALIZED = NATURAL-BORN.”
The term NATURAL-BORN could not be made more simple than it already was, and Congress fully understood the differences between the words Bingham utilized as he utilized them.
Furthermore, the evils of TYRANNY wasn’t an alien concept for the founders; they didn’t need to define ARMS any more than the authors of the 14th needed to define differences between the terms NATURAL-BORN and ADOPTED.
I mean, I would dare believe, “We the People” should be allowed to own any weapon a government is allowed to wield, due to the fact the government consists of (or SHOULD consist of) “We the People”, and I would dare believe the founders would agree with that, wholeheartedly.
In other words, ARMS are ARMS — whether the arms exist as/on guns, cannons, navy vessels, tanks, flamethrowers, rockets, jets, subs, spacecrafts, space lasers, para-gliders, chemical weapons, planet destroyers, etc. — any freedom-loving American should have the capacity to fortify their existence via any form of mutually assured destruction.
Furthermore, as crazy as the “mutually assured destruction” assertion may be, even with NUKES in the mix, I 100% believe America’s founders would feel the same way, because they knew crazy tyrants could only be matched with crazy offenses/defenses, so they knew how placing defined limits on what ARMS may or may not be could only serve as an act of infringement, an alienation of rights, a crime against any free law-abiding American.
Incorrect. Was defined in both the book the founders used as a reference and in a naturalization law.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h9PxdDvgQks
Yep.
I think this would need to be clarified by the SC. I listened to the lecture, and thought it made 100% common sense, particularly inheritance by birth (in the blood) vis citizenship conferred by human act, such as legislation or document, etc.
Very enlightening.
Rather amazed that the Kamala thing is not more widely understood.
There is one path to be a "natural born citizen" and multiple paths to be a "naturalized citizen" and they ARE NOT THE SAME! There is already a very long post discussing this already on here.
Don't be stingy. Share the link!
Are you saying, then, that if John Doe's father and mother are both US citizens legitimately and have resided in the US, but happen to travel to Japan on assignment and then John is born there, that he is NOT a natural born citizen?
Would he have to be naturalized?