"Natural Born" citizen - why the requirement for president

[DeletedUser23123]

But the parents can't stay in the US. Will they leave the child behind?

That child will not be able to claim he/she an american. With no Birth Certificate or records of any kind. The child will have to be naturalize. If the parent leave the child behind to to be adopted. The child will be a citizen.
One of my Aunt and Uncle went to Greece. Uncle was in the military and got transfer. They had 2 kids here in America. They been there for 5 years. One of the kids got married and had a son. His was 17 when they all came back. She divorce the guy in Greece. Brought the kid with her. The Government said that because of his age. He'll have to be naturalize. Just been told this. Don't if that true.

 

[Mustapha00]

Unarguably? Obama's mother was also a natural born citizen but that didn't stop a lot of people arguing his not being a NBC despite his being born in Hawaii. Cruz was born to a US citizen but in Canada. I don't think it's as clear cut as you're making it seem.

I said that Cruz's mother was "unarguably" an American citizen, not Cruz himself.

While I believe him to be an NBC, I'm not about to say "unarguably".

 

[Mustapha00]

What about a child born in the United States, not in a hospital, from illegal immigrant parents who returned immediately after the birth to their country of origin with the child?

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in part:

"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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Section 1)"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

The first two clauses are in tension with each other, that is they are in at least partial legal contradiction.

In the circumstance you describe, a child born in the United States to two not only non-citizens of the US but two individuals here illegally, should NOT be entitled to US citizenship due to the second clause in Section 1, namely that neither the parents nor the child are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the United States); they are under the jurisdiction, meaning governed by the laws of, their native country. A proper interpretation of both clauses should end the unconstitutional practice of "anchor babies".

 

[DeletedUser10415]

a child born in the United States to two not only non-citizens of the US but two individuals here illegally, should NOT be entitled to US citizenship due to the second clause in Section 1, namely that neither the parents nor the child are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the United States); they are under the jurisdiction, meaning governed by the laws of, their native country.

So um, they can do whatever they want in the U.S., since they're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the United States)? Seems like that's never been how it works.

 

[Mustapha00]

So um, they can do whatever they want in the U.S., since they're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the United States)? Seems like that's never been how it works.

You are conflating "jurisdiction" with "law", which are two different legal concepts.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

You are conflating "jurisdiction" with "law"

No, I don't think so. I think you'd really be better offer making your arguments concerning the things you want to argue about without trying to link them all to your personal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Mustapha00]

No, I don't think so. I think you'd really be better offer making your arguments concerning the things you want to argue about without trying to link them all to your personal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Being that the United States Constitution is the- or at least is intended to be- the single document on which laws pertaining to the Federal government are based, it would be rather difficult to omit that document from discussions concerning Federal laws and jurisdictions.

To expound upon my point, "jurisdiction" refers to locations and/or situations under which a given set of laws apply. In the instance of someone in this country illegally, their citizenship status is codified by the country of which they are a citizen, i.e. the country which has jurisdiction over them. Of course, the country in which they reside's laws do- or, at least, should- affect the individual, and would include such things as civil and criminal laws.

Pretty simple concept if you wish to understand it.

 

[Mustapha00]

We can't debate this matter without interpreting the Constitution. What makes one interpretation personal and another one not personal? All interpretations of the Constitution are essentially "personal," even a Supreme Justice's interpretation. I don't think you'd be able to tell Ruth Ginsburg that her argument isn't good because she used a personal interpretation of the Constitution.

With some, it boils down to this:
The interpretation isn't "personal" if one agrees with it, and it is "personal" if one do not agree with it.
Such allows one to avoid arguing the core issue entirely.

 

[DeletedUser27096]

I refuse to believe that no one of European descent was born in the United States in 1789. Fortunately the 14th amendment was added in 1868 when there were plenty of natural born citizens around.

I would imagine (without looking up the details) that many of the founding fathers were born in the US. The pilgrims first landed in 1620 so it is not unreasonable to think that in 179 years, there were enough US born people that some of them ended up being founding fathers.

Although I could be completely wrong...

 

[DeletedUser13838]

Section 1 of article 2 says "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President".

None of the founding fathers were natural born citizens since they were British by birth. The underlined was their out-clause. I believe Van Buren was the 1st president who was born after 1776 (though before 1789 so not sure he counts as first natural born citizen who became president).

 

[DeletedUser11427]

They requirement is obviously there due to the possibility of divided loyalties. Regarding "natural born citizens", I personally think that both parents should be born here as well, for someone to become a citizen. A visiting couple could have a child, and the child could become a citizen. The 14th amendment was written for a specific purpose, and the issue most likely could have been settled in other ways. How did other countries handle it? How do they handle it now? Until the phrase is defined by the court, there will continue to be disagreements. Many candidates eligibility has been challenged though, not just Obamas

 

[DeletedUser28177]

When I hear natural born, I must say a human that is born by natural causes. Not inseminated via technology nor removed from a woman via medical surgery. Either way, that is a very loose interpretation there which can be debated, it doesn't clearly state what they mean by natural born so we assume that it means born on US soil but US soil is loose interpretation as well. I don't consider US soil to be around the world neither would the founding fathers probably consider South Korea as US soil but anyone born there can be considered as a natural born US citizen if they meet the "requirements". Also another debate that can be made is that the adoption of the Constitution, it doesn't state when exactly is it considered adoption, just because the Constitution exist it doesn't mean people adopt it. People who are born in the US violate the Constitution every single day, even by ignorance. The word adopt mean "take up or start to use or follow" so really the Constitution is only adopted when we start to live by it; which people who are naturalized into US Citizen are sworn to Oath the Constitution, thus they have now adopted a Constitution which may now "qualify" them for presidency because it was that initial moment that the Constitution exists in their lives through their adoption.

 

[DeletedUser25273]

For the definition of 'Natural Born Citizen' (you need the whole phrase), it is generally accepted that this meant that the person had the right of Citizenship by the nature of their birth, and not by some later naturalization process. There can sometimes be some argument over the exact requirements to have citizenship by birthright,

Actually, the Constitution does define its point of adoption, Article VII defines that upon Ratification by 9 of the then existing states, it will be established as the Constitution between those states that ratified it. Thus, that point in time was June 21, 1788, so anyone considered to be a Citizen of the country at that time was considered eligible to be elected president. Without that clause, we couldn't have had a president for 35 years after the adoption of the constitution, as everyone currently living at that point couldn't pass the Natural Born Citizen test, as there was no United States at the time of their birth to obtain citizenship by birthright. I suppose it could be argued that citizens of the remaining 4 states could use their states date of ratification as the adoption point, but unless someone can show themselves to be in excess of 200 years old, this part of the clause has basically become moot.

 

[DeletedUser26154]

but unless someone can show themselves to be in excess of 200 years old, this part of the clause has basically become moot.

Ardak for President.

 

[spnnr]

There has been media discussion about what defines the "natural born" citizen constitutional requirement for presidential candidates.
Some constitutional scholars believe a candidate must be born in US, some say one (or more) parents must be born in US (ala Ted Cruz) some say candidate, both parents, etc. - SCOTUS might need to decide.
I say why the requirement ?
Other than the constitution requirement, what is inherent in whatever "Natural Born" means that makes a candidate more qualified to run for president ?
The constitution should be amended to make every citizen able to vote to be allowed to run for president.
Maybe we would get better candidates.
What do you think ?

That's an interesting point. The founders of the US constitution took into the consideration the global realities of the time and maybe it is time to revisit it as the world has become more globalized. it does beg the question though -If a person is born in a country does that reduce or increase the probability that he/she will be more/less "loyal" to that country?
I am not sure we can get better candidates as its political parties and their machinery that put forward successful candidates with few exceptions. That said it should remain in place as anarchy may take place when a Mexican becomes US president..

 

[Mustapha00]

Unarguably? Obama's mother was also a natural born citizen but that didn't stop a lot of people arguing his not being a NBC despite his being born in Hawaii. Cruz was born to a US citizen but in Canada. I don't think it's as clear cut as you're making it seem.

Hang on a sec, Konrad- I stated that Cruz's >mother< was unarguably a natural-born US citizen, having been born in Delaware.

While I think that Sen. Cruz is also a natural born citizen (and for that exact reason- that at least one of his parents is a NBC), I do recognize that issue was (and might be again) up for debate.

The issue with Obama was a different one, as it appears that supporters of his, if not Obama himself, were only too glad to capitalize on his international background as giving him a markedly different perspective on how the world views Americans. In fact, the press release accompanying his first autobiography claimed that he was born in Kenya. Obama could have- and should have- put the issue to rest early on by producing his Hawaiian birth certificate, but either his advisers or he himself saw that he could wrest political advantage from the debate and chose to remain largely silent. Ironically, had he been more forthcoming, Trump might not have had the megaphone he then had and parlayed into the Presidency.

 

[Mustapha00]

The bearing is that USA has imposed this "natural born citizen" requirement to protect its "national identity", where it has no respect for other's "national identity".

Iraq, 2005-2006.

The US could well have continued to occupy that country in virtual perpetuity, not permitting elections at all or only a farce of an election such as we see in Cuba, North Korea, Iran and the like. Yet we made a promise to the Iraqi people that we would cede sovereignty back to them once a set of agreed-upon preconditions were met. And we did exactly that.

 

[DeletedUser11463]

I refuse to believe that no one of European descent was born in the United States in 1789. Fortunately the 14th amendment was added in 1868 when there were plenty of natural born citizens around.

Actually, since the United States was "created" in 1776, the oldest person in 1789 who was a natural born citizen would have been 13. Certainly not someone who could have been eligible for being the President. They were born on the American land but were British citizens at the time, so they were not natural born citizens.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

Actually, since the United States was "created" in 1776, the oldest person in 1789 who was a natural born citizen would have been 13. Certainly not someone who could have been eligible for being the President. They were born on the American land but were British citizens at the time, so they were not natural born citizens.

The requirements set in the constitution distinguished between Natural Born Citizens and US citizens at the time of the constitution's adoption as I noted here.

Section 1 of article 2 says "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President".

None of the founding fathers were natural born citizens since they were British by birth. The underlined was their out-clause. I believe Van Buren was the 1st president who was born after 1776 (though before 1789 so not sure he counts as first natural born citizen who became president).

Hang on a sec, Konrad- I stated that Cruz's >mother< was unarguably a natural-born US citizen, having been born in Delaware.

While I think that Sen. Cruz is also a natural born citizen (and for that exact reason- that at least one of his parents is a NBC), I do recognize that issue was (and might be again) up for debate.

The problem with this argument is that if children born to a NBC are automatically a NBC you can potentially have large numbers of NBCs who never lived in the US and are not culturally american. Imagine 2 NBCs moving to China and having children. Those children would automatically be NBCs as would their children and children's children, etc. and eventually you'll have thousands of chinese citizens who would also be considered NBCs despite being entirely chinese culturally. The clause clearly distinguishes between US citizens and natural born citizens to avoid this issue.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ironically, we now have a President who clearly has divided loyalties, despite being a "natural born citizen".