What is a Natural Born Citizen?
In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this.
By Dianna Cotter
For well over a year now, we have been hearing this question in regards to Barack Obama. It’s a good question, and one that is relevant only when discussing the President, Vice President, and anyone else who may assume the Presidency in the line of succession. This the only time that such a distinction matters.
It will help in this very important discussion to understand the differing types of Citizenship that the United States recognizes and what defines them.
A Naturalized Citizen is one who has applied for and has qualified for American Citizenship. Someone applying for and being granted US Citizenship must meet the following qualifications according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.
To be eligible for Naturalization one must:
• Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400
• Have been lawfully admitted to the United States
• Have resided as a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years or 3 years if you meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
• Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence
• Have demonstrated physical presence
• Have lived for 3 months in the USCIS district or state where the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 is filed
• Demonstrate good moral character
• Show an attachment to the U.S. Constitution
• Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English
• Demonstrate a knowledge of U.S. civics (history and government)
• Take the oath of allegiance to the United States
The next type of citizen is that of a standard citizen. The USICS website describes a citizen thusly:
“A citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection. In addition to the naturalization process, the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli, or right of birthplace, and jus sanguinis, or right of blood (deriving citizenship through parent’s citizenship).
Whether someone born outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen depends on the law in effect when the person was born. These laws have changed over the years, but usually require a combination of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born and having lived in the U.S. or its possessions for a period of time”
This passage from the USICS is important for two reasons. First, it makes the distinction clear that the United States uses two different means by which it derives citizenship; one by blood, and the other by place of birth.
Second, it makes clear that citizenship is completely dependent on that laws that were in effect at the time a person was born.
Today’s laws do not in any way effect or change the citizenship standing of a person who was born in 1961.
This statement tells us that it is a person’s standing at the time of his or her birth that is the determining instant which dictates that person’s citizenship status. It is only at birth or upon naturalization that a person can become an American Citizen. Barack Obama’s citizenship status was determined at his birth just as with all American citizens who were born inside the territory of the United States.
This brings us to the third type of citizenship, the one most hotly debated, and the one least understood. Because of the infrequency of its relevance, few people will ever be in the position to become President, it simply doesn’t come up very often.
What is a Natural Born Citizen?
The following quotes are the research work of Ken Dunbar. He deserves credit for doing the legwork and hours of research that made it possible to print the quotations that follow.
Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
-Emer Vattel (English language version, “Law of Nations” (1797) Book I, c.19, § 212
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Documents/LawOfNations,Vattel.htm#I-%C2%A7212
Who is Emer Vattel? He wrote the book "Law of Nations" which was originally published in France in 1758. Vattels work would be distributed by none other than Benjamin Franklin who received it from Charles William Frederic Dumas. History gives us this information in a letter dated 9 December, 1775
“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Expose de ce qui s'est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies," bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.(2) We are making all the provision in our power here to oppose that force, and we hope we shall be able to defend ourselves. But, as the events of war are always uncertain, possibly, after another campaign, we may find it necessary to ask the aid of some foreign power.
…With sincere and great esteem and respect, I am, Sir, &c. B. Franklin.”
Benjamin Franklin himself read the works of Vattel, and there are numerous areas of our own constitution and founding documents that bear striking similarity to that work.
The constitution did not evolve from darkness. It was deliberately created, using the best knowledge and works of not only the day, but of history. The “Law of Nations” was one of those works, and it is not the only one. The definition given us in this work is the one that was used by the framers when they made the distinction between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. Furthermore, Vattel’s work has been cited numerous times in American History.
From the research of Ken Dunbar:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." -US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1812)
********
"By this same writer it is also said: 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society [60 U.S. 393, 477] cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.'
Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” – Associate Justice Peter Daniel in Scott v Sanford ( 1857 )
********
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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 - ---Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )
********
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.
-Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
********
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
[…]“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 [169 U.S. 649, 680] 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.” .-Associate Justice Horace Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
In all these quotes, two things are of importance: the use of the word Parents – plural meaning more than one, and the concept that the citizenship conditions of children follow from that of their parents. These historical references are clear in their meaning.
In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is the son of a British subject.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was never an American, never applied to be, and never intended to be.
His son’s condition at the moment of his birth cannot be changed, altered, redacted, retroactive or in any way changed.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not a Natural Born Citizen because he does not have two parents who were citizens of the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Re: 'In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this."
Is that why why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
And:
Gov. Bobby Jindal, who delivered the Republican response to Obama’s speech, said: “Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s personal story - the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.”
Jindal, of course, would be even less of a citizen under Vattel’s concept because neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. His mother was about three months pregnant when they came to the USA.
Vattel did say something about a special category of citizens who have two parents, natural citizens, but he actually did not use the term Natural Born Citizen because he wrote in French, and the translations that appeared before the writing of the Constitution did not use the phrase Natural Born.
More interestingly, though Vattel did have a category of citizens that had two citizen parents and was born in the country, Vattel NEVER says that leaders of a country should be even citizens, much less natural citizens. He has several cases where countries picked their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries, and he never says doing that was a bad thing.
Moreover, Vattel advises such things as that countries should each pick state religions and force people to join those religions–or else allow them to leave the country. So, since the framers of the Constitution did not obey Vattel in all things, did they obey him in the two-parent requirement?
Most likely NO. The term “natural born” was already in use in the laws of the American colonies and British law, and it simply meant a citizen due to the place of birth, regardless of the number of parents.
There are a couple of other arguments against “the two parents plus born in the USA theory” besides the common law.
The first of these is the strict construction approach. If the framers of the Constitution had wanted us to understand that “Natural Born Citizen” should mean either two US parents or two US parents and be born in the USA, surely they would have said so. By not saying so, they certainly knew that people could think that they meant the common law definition of Natural Born Citizen as the equivalent of “Natural Born Subject.” So, for them to not clarify, must have meant that the Common Law definition was just fine.
A second point is with the logic of the parents being citizens at the time of birth. Under this theory if one of my parents gets naturalized one day after I was born, I’m not eligible. If both are naturalized a minute before I am born, I am eligible. This may be useful as an arbitrary breakdown of who should and should not be president, but what is the REAL sense behind it? Does the fact that someone was naturalized before really make a difference to someone’s loyalty? What evidence is there that the framers though this, instead of the more commonly used rule of birth in the country, used by the Common Law?
As the Wall Street Journal says: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
re comments by smrstrauss:
first off, my aunt is an Australian who is now an American citizen. My cousins are American citizens by virtue of the fact that their father was an American citizen, and the USA is the country of their birth.
Second, the opinions of Hatch and Graham do not count as far as a court of law is concerned. They have offered an opinion but have they done sufficient detailed research?
What needs to happen is for this case to be heard in a court of law so that it is decided once and for all.
At the heart of the issue of conferring citizenship is the citizenship of the father. In the case of Obama or is that Soetero, the father came from Kenya and was a British subject. The mother was too young to confer citizenship since she had not attained 20 years of age when she gave birth.... (another quirk that needs to be investigated about a mother conferring citizenship).
When these citizenship rules are applied to say Arnie Schwarznegger, he cannot run for the office of POTUS because even though he is a citizen he was not born in the USA. This makes him ineligible for the role.
Bobby Jindal could probably not run for President because of a similar thing.... he was born in the USA but his parents were Indian citizens... which means a court would have to rule upon his eligibility for running for the office of POTUS.
Personally, I am not a "birther" but I do believe that the issue should be brought before the courts in order to have it decided. I also believe that those other records that have been sealed should be opened up for inspection. Someone has something to hide and there is no transparency.
Re: "What needs to happen is for this case to be heard in a court of law so that it is decided once and for all."
Our system works this way, the final decision is made by the US Supreme Court. For a case to be called to the Supreme Court, it has to go through the appeals process, and then at the end of that process there has to be at least four Supreme Court justices who think there is a constitutional issue.
IF six justices think that Natural Born simply means "born in the country" that means that the case will NOT be called. And, it means that even if the case is not called, the Supreme Court holds that Natural Born just means born in the country.
I suggest that there are not four votes for calling the case on the Supreme Court. None of the Strict Constructionist judges will call the case because they will say "We cannot read into the phrase Natural Born Citizen a need for two parents. If the framers had meant two parents they would have said two parents."
And the experts in the history of the Constitution will know that Natural Born was the common expression for native born in those days. In those days people rarely if ever used the term "native born."
The opinions of the senators are of course just opinions, but it is highly likely that among the justices of the Supreme Court six or more justices will have the same opinion as those senators.
The Constitution is clear that persons who are not US citizens cannot be president. And it is clear that naturalized citizens cannot be president (so Arnold S cannot be). But it is not clear that there is a barrier on US-born children of foreigners. Indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary, that the framers believed that birth in the USA was the key to a person's allegiance of the USA.
In this they followed British common law and the laws in the colonies at the time.
I am not sure what you are saying about your relatives. I discussed this with a birther once who was not a US citizen, and he held that his daughers who were born in the USA were citizens but not Natural Born Citizens because of him. I disagreed, naturally, saying that despite him his daughters are both citizens and Natural Born Citizens, and I hope that they run for president one day.
This comes from an Adams descendant:
“The Adams papers I am in possession of plainly state they looked to “Vattel’s Law of Nations” for guidance in determining who might be qualified as a “natural born Citizen”.
My family is in possession of over seven thousand files of Adams documents that have been passed from generation to generation. We know what our forebears intended, we are not guessing and jumping to conclusions. Every possible legal scenario was thoroughly discussed and carefully decided by the Founding Fathers. Contrary to prevailing opinion, they left NOTHING to chance. I will be sharing our documents with the best qualified attorneys working on the Obama eligibility cases. Get used to it, Obama is finished and he knows it. Obama is knowingly leading his blinded followers down the paths of deceit and directly into the darkened halls of shame.
My heritage includes the Adams of Massachusetts and the Herndons of Virginia. The Adams papers I am in possession of plainly state they looked to “Vattel’s Law of Nations” for guidance in determining who might be qualified as a “natural born Citizen”. (Yes, they capitalized “Citizen”.) Do you actually believe there was no discussion of the topic by the Founding Fathers? Are you truly that ignorant of how well the Founding Fathers understood the law and its possible impact on future generations? It is very clear you haven’t a clue how well educated and intelligent the Founding Fathers were. Most were conversant in Latin and Greek, plus Hebrew and Aramaic
“The Lees of Virginia and other families also possess within their private archives a great deal of documentation regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers. Those who believe this issue was not debated and decided long ago haven’t been previously afforded access to the existing documents. ”
…The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
My family also counts among our forebears King O’Leathlobhair (pronounced OWE LAL_OW_IR), who was ruler of all England in the third century A.D. The name O’Leathlobhair means “seeker of justice” and it is the original term from which the word “lawyer” was derived around the year 100 B.C.
Re: "This comes from an Adams descendant."
Please cite the name of the descendant and a place where I can see the actual words she or he used. It is clear from the words John Adams used at the time that he ONLY used Natural Born in the context of the British law and the laws in the colonies (Adams was a lawyer after all). And Adams only uses Natural Born to mean citizenship due to birth in the country or colony.
There is an excellent example of Adams (and for that matter Ben Franklin and John Jay) using the term Natural Born Citizen as equivalent to the British term Natural Born Subject, and we know from Blackstone and other commentators that a Natural Born Subject was simply someone who was born in the British realm regardless of the number of parents who were British.
Here is the quotation: (The spelling and capitalization are what they were at the time.)
Quote begins:
Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca 27 April 1787 [in Paris]
Articles agreed on by David Hartley Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Brittanic Majesty for &c in behalf of said Majesty on the one part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L [Henry Livingston, who was also at the US Embassy in France, but is not as famous as the other three], ministers plenipotentiary of the Unites States of America for treating of peace….in addition to the articles agreed on the 30th day of November 1782…The subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States---and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt."
http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=%22draft+articles+to+supplement%22&source=bl&ots=Aojo7Iux2Z&sig=r8tN3gtsaDaRYWKBox5fOWNPo4M&hl=en&ei=K4pBSvW6ComJtge3iN2dCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3
End quotation
Another way of wording the same thing, in another draft, was that “the subjects of his Brittanic Majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as Natural born Subjects & enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the Respective Dominions and Territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA214&dq=franklin+subject:%22History+/+United+States+/+Revolutionary+Period+(1775-1800)%22&lr=
What does this mean? It means that as far as the writers of this document were concerned (Adams, Franklin, Jay and Livingston on the US side), the term natural born citizen is equivalent to natural born subject.
The term “natural born citizen” meant to these US writers just what “natural born subject” meant to the British. It could not be that in the arrangement for equal treatment between the USA and Britain, that someone had to have two US parents to be treated just the same as a natural born subject in Britain who simply had to be born in the British realm.
Subjects and Citizens are different, sure, but the question is are they different where their parents are concerned? Why, unless there is a framer saying so, does "natural born citizen" require two parents while "natural born subject" merely requires birth in the country?
To smrstrauss,
I have seen your absolutely wrong propaganda on many sites. It is your kind that seeks to destroy our constitution. You are one of the Obama Bridgetender brigads, sent out by this administration to shout down and ridicule any dissent of your Dear Leader. Our constitution is about Natural Law, not British Common Law. Common law, and the subjugation of state citizens is what this country fought to get away from. To think that British common law controls us is IDIOCY. It will be brought forth that this POTUS is ineligible due to his father's Kenyan citizenship when Obama 2 was born. Now go crawl back into your treasonous hole.
Re: "Our constitution is about Natural Law."
Who says? I mean, is there a framer of the Constitution who says that? And besides, does Natural Born have a special meaning in Natural Law? I mean do other natural law philosophers than Vattel use the term?
Other natural law philosophers include Locke and Hobbes and Rousseau and some even include St. Thomas Acquinas, and they all have very different views. (Locke rarely uses the term "citizen" at all. He talks about the rights of men.)
It should be obvious from its construction and its interest in law that the Constitution is a legal document and that 60% or more of the people who wrote it were lawyers. (Hamilton, for example, was a lawyer, and he repeatedly uses Natural Born to mean citizenship due to place of birth.)
Natural Born was used overwhelmingly in those days to mean "born in the country."
For example, this paragraph was written in an discussion of the Constitution only about five years after the Constitution, and it says that since there were no naturalization laws before the Constitution, the only residents of the states were aliens and persons who were Natural Born Citizens.
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. "
That is from St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings > View of the Constitution of the United States > paragraph 493 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php)
Another use (but this refers to natural born subjects) is by James Wilson, who was a member of the Constitutional Convention and earlier a member of the Continental Congress, and he wrote:
"Natural born subjects have a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born in the king’s ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour; the explanation of which rights is the principal subject of the law. 1. Bl. Com. 371." (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=2072&search=%22natural+born%22&chapter=156335&layout=html#a_2775384)
To be sure, this refers to Natural Born Subjects, but it clearly says that they acquire their rights by being born in the king's liegance (or area that the king controlled).
The term "native born" was rarely used in those days. (In fact, I cannot find it at all.) Natural Born was the term used in those days for what we now call native born, or born in the country. And this continued for years. At the time of World War I, men who were registered for the draft were asked if they were citizens, and if so, whether they were natural born or naturalized.
Post a Comment