Subscribe...running for president isn't applying to work at McDonalds.No one knows exactly what the nation's Founders had in mind when they wrote that "No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President." [...] However, the "natural born" Clause's origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."The article also gets into the interesting question of whether the 'natural-born' requirement ought to prohibit naturalized citizens from serving in roles that could result in them ending up as President through the line of succession. It points out that there have been several SecStates who were naturalized citizens -- what would have happened if they'd been called on to serve as acting President (in the event of death or incapacitation of those above them on the list) isn't clear.
The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention.
[...]
[T]here are conflicting holdings that only further compound the problem of understanding this clause. United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) indicates that foreign born children of Americans are not natural born. But in contrast, Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927) holds that "at common law the children of our citizen born abroad were always natural born citizen from the standpoint of this government."
It is the consensus of scholars, however, that foreign born children of Americans are natural born citizens. And that would mean that Romney and McCain would certainly qualify.
There is also general agreement that no foreign-born person who becomes a "naturalized" citizen can become president under Article II, unless it is amended. This consensus means that Schwarzenegger and Granholm are out.
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."Strictly speaking, the 14th Amendment really does muck up this distinction (re: "natural-born") and it is a debatable issue, despite what a lot of people here seem to believe.
Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens.[...]
a. The term “nationals of the United States”, as defined by statute (Section l0l(a)(22) INA) includes all citizens of the United States, and other persons who owe allegiance to the United States but who have not been granted the privilege of citizenship.[...]So are people born in the Panama Canal Zone still considered U.S. non-citizen nationals (as opposed to "at one time or other" were so considered)? And if McCain is a "U.S. non-citizen national", would he be eligible for election in a strict interpretation?
c. Historically, Congress, through statutes, granted U.S. nationality, but not citizenship, to persons born or inhabiting territory acquired by the United States through conquest or treaty. At one time or other natives and certain other residents of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Guam, and the Panama Canal Zone were U.S. non-citizen nationals. [Emphasis added]
c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.So if only Arnold had had American parents at the time of his birth in Austria...
The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "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."
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is some debate over whether other persons with citizenship can also be considered citizens by birth, or whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized". Current US statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," as opposed to citizens by birth. One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."
Where does Minor mention the definition of "natural born citizen"?Search function not working?
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,' and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.LobsterMitten:
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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
spiderwire, although oaf is the one bothering to disagree here, I'm also not seeing why you draw that distinction. Children of US citizens are ipso facto citizens when they are born. What's the reason for not seeing it that way? I mean, I know you say there is a debate, but on what does the debate rest? Why think the only way to be born a citizen is to be born on US soil, and that otherwise one must be granted citizenship? (I'm just asking for a recap of your reason for believing this)The jus soli grant of citizenship is Constitutional, and can't be abridged -- even preemptively -- by the government, because it's a guaranteed privilege/immunity based on the Constitutional pact. That's the first method outlined in the 14th Amendment: born in the country. It exists as a matter of right independently of government action.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.It then cites to Minor and Elk v. Wilkins as original examples for the proposition that
[ . . . ] naturalization when used in its constitutional sense is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization [ . . . ]This is pretty straightforward.
« Older Master of the 'didge'... | Take a stroll down the Minneap... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by langedon at 8:02 AM on February 28, 2008 [17 favorites]