Foreigners Becoming President (of the USA)

[BKABBY]

This has been a question plaguing my family for months now, not because it happened, but because it could. We live in Michigan, but frequently go across the Detroit-Windsor border into Canada for the casino/cheap booze (Hey, gotta be honest, right?) We are all American citizens, but one of the people going with us is pregnant. What would happen if she suddenly went into labor early, and couldn't get back across the border, and the baby was born in Canada?
2 Questions: Would this person have American or Canadian citizenship? And, could this person be president, given the constitutional restrictions?
Or, what if I was overseas, on a tourist visa, and the baby was born there?
I mean, taking practicality into account, I doubt this'll matter, but, I was just wondering, in case.

[Boyo Jim]

The baby would have American citizenship, but I don't know about dual (Canadian or other foreign) citizenship.

The baby would NOT be eligible to be president.

[censored]

One of the criteria for being President is being born in the US. For example...associated cabinet members (like Albright or Kissenger) that were not born in the US would be excluded from the Presidential succession list.

[Mike H]

The baby WOULD be eligible to be president, since all the constitution says is that to qualify one must be "a naturally born citizen" of the United States, i.e., a citizen by virtue of birth (rather than naturalized), which would be the case in this instance. The constitution doesn't say anything about where one must be born. This has never been tested however, since to my knowledge no president has been born outside the territory of the United States.

[Tony Barber's Underwear]

Originally posted by Mike H
This has never been tested however, since to my knowledge no president has been born outside the territory of the United States.

I thought that George Washington and perhaps a couple of others were born outside the United States, as it didn't exist at the time of their births, but I assume that there was provision made for them when the constitution was drafted.

- Bubba.

[Philbuck]

Others have provided the answer, but here's a cite:


The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one is an alien and as long as one is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic
service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be
considered natural-born, for example.

(From http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html)

Originally posted by Tony Barber's Underwear
I thought that George Washington and perhaps a couple of others were born outside the United States, as it didn't exist at the time of their births, but I assume that there was provision made for them when the constitution was drafted.


From Article II, Section 1 of the Consitution:

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

[Boyo Jim]

I retract my assertion that the baby would not be eligible. It PROBABLY would. However, the term "natural born citizen" is nowhere defined in the Constitution, and has apprently never been defined in the Federal courts either.

This site (http://www.thisnation.com/question/049.html#eligible) flatly states that the person WOULD be eligible.

This "American Citizens Abroad" site (http://www.acasweden.org/mag/1999_v09_n03/page15.html) says the question remains open. It notes that there were 2 presidential candidates who MAY have faced court challenges if their election had gone that far. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona BEFORE it became a state. George Romney was born in Mexico of American parents, exactly what the OP posits.

One thing is sure. If the baby comes back and grows up in the US, he/she can certainly run for the Presidency.

Given the increasing litigeousness of American society since the '60s, there would almost certainly be a court challenge if your child won.

And I suppose that would settle the question.

[bup]

Tangential Note: My high-school history teacher taught that there was a rumor that Andrew Jackson was born on a boat on its way to the United States, although he maintained he was born on American soil.

[msgotrocks]

Originally posted by BKABBY
We live in Michigan, but frequently go across the Detroit-Windsor border into Canada for the casino/cheap booze... We are all American citizens, but one of the people going with us is pregnant.

You're taking pregnant chicks to Canada for gambling and cheap booze?! :eek:

[plnnr]

Martin Van Buren was the first President born in the United States, by definition.

[KenP]

Although Chester A. Arthur gave Fairfield, Vermont, as his birthplace, some have alleged that he was actually born several miles north, in Quebec. Apparently, his parents lived in the woods, sometimes N and sometimes S of the border. Sorry, no cite.

[KenP]

OK, here’s a cite:
http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/canada/president.asp
It says, “Burke's Presidential Families of the United States of America says that despite the official birthplace, Arthur ‘was probably born in Canada.’ Other sources make the same claim, almost off-handedly, but argue that since his parents were U.S citizens Arthur's eligibility for the presidency wasn't challenged. His eligibility was challenged in 1880 when Arthur was the vice-presidential candidate running with James Garfield. According to Thomas C. Reeves, a biographer of Arthur, the Democrats hired a New York attorney named Arthur Hinman to explore these rumors and make a report. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Quebec his grandparents' house. Hinman says Arthur's mother often visited her parents in Dunham, Quebec. Another biographer, George Howe, describes this theory as ‘an interesting hoax’ that received little attention at the time.”

[plnnr]

A thread that mentions my two favorite Presidents: Van Buren and Arthur. A red letter day.

[BobT]

It was bad enough that Arthur was born in Vermont. That's barely a state! It's the Delaware of New England!

[Otto]

Apropos of nothing in particular, there was some speculation as to whether Barry Goldwater was eligible to be elected president, as he was born in the Arizona Territory before it became a state.

[Gary T]

Originally posted by Otto
Apropos of nothing in particular, there was some speculation as to whether Barry Goldwater was eligible to be elected president, as he was born in the Arizona Territory before it became a state.

yojimboguy mentioned that also, but I would think that was addressed by this part of the law Philbuck cited:

Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

[Freddy the Pig]

John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, and no one has questioned his eligibility to be president. We won't get a definitive answer unless or until a borderline case is litigated, but the interpretation put forth by Philbuck's cite would seem to be the common-sense way to go.

[Agback]

Originally posted by censored
One of the criteria for being President is being born in the US. For example...associated cabinet members (like Albright or Kissenger) that were not born in the US would be excluded from the Presidential succession list.

Incorrect. The Constitutional criterion is being a native-born citizen of the US. It excludes naturalised citizens, but includes the children of US citizens where-ever they are born.

Regards,


Agback

[Boyo Jim]

Originally posted by jklann
John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, and no one has questioned his eligibility to be president. We won't get a definitive answer unless or until a borderline case is litigated, but the interpretation put forth by Philbuck's cite would seem to be the common-sense way to go.

If he wins a presidential election, you can bet the Democrats WILL challenge his eligibility.

[BobT]

It would be more likely that the Republicans would want to challenge McCain's eligibility. There were plenty of opportunities to do so during the 2000 campaign.

McCain would not be a borderline case. He was born in a U.S. territory.

The borderline cases will be people born on foreign soil, but of U.S. citizens. And I believe that any such challenge would come up during the campaign, not after the election.

[Boyo Jim]

It's very unlikely the Republicams would go after McCain. It would be too divisive. It wouldn't be worthwhile unless he won the nomination, and if he did so, the Party would destroy the future of any Republican who would risk their chance at the Presidency by bringing such a suit.

I could easily see a Democratic candidate who lost the general election going to court with it, however. What would there be to lose?

[bup]

At long last, all human decency.

[dougie_monty]

During the 1964 Presidential campaign, famed personal-injury attorney Melvin Belli brought up the question of Goldwater's eligibility. I did not know at the time whether or not Romney was born outside the U.S.; but it's my understanding that a U.S. Citizen would have to be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of his birth." (Cf. 14th Amendment.)
Alexander Hamilton, given his strong right-wing political philosophy (and the question of whether his parents were married when he was born), would not have had a chance to be elected President, regardless of his birth in the West Indies. As already noted he, like Washington, John Adams, etc., was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted.
Al Gore wasn't born in a state, either. He was born in Washington, D. C. :p

[sailor]

I can't believe ignorance is so widespread. The President has to be "natural born" citizen. Where people get that this is the same as "born on US soil" I have no idea. Natural born citizen means he was born a citizen and not naturalized later. You can be born a US citizen anywhere in the world.

[sailor]

And BTW, the president must have resided in the USA for 14 years so, a US citizen born in Paraguay and who has resided in the USA for 14 years and is older than 35 is eligible but a US citizen born in the USA but who has not resided in the US for 14 years is not eligible.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

IMHO a natural born citizen is any person born in US territory or have both parents being US citizens (regardless of place of birth). Those are the only criteria that automatically makes the child a US citizen (thus natural born), all others may either be naturalized or arbitrated.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally posted by sailor
I can't believe ignorance is so widespread. The President has to be "natural born" citizen. Where people get that this is the same as "born on US soil" I have no idea. Natural born citizen means he was born a citizen and not naturalized later. You can be born a US citizen anywhere in the world.

Since "natural born citizen" was never defined in the constitution, nor for that matter by Federal courts, why do you assume that thise who don't "know" what it means are so ignorant? I take exception to that.

The information I've found indicates that the definition is still open to question.

[sailor]

yojimboguy, exactly where do you get the notion that natural born citizen equals born on US soil? Because I do not think you will find *any* support for that notion. Natural born means citizen by birth as opposed to a "naturalized" citizen who has acquired the nationality later. The idea that "natural born" equates "born on US soil" just shows absolute ignorance about the concept of nationality. You will *not* find support for that concept from anything but ignorant sources. Certainly not from any text or government sources. Or can you show any?

[Boyo Jim]

Sailor,
I will look for some support. Meanwhile, since you're the one who's flatly asserted what the definition of the term is, I challenge you to do the same. Find a definition and show me.

I already posted two cites above. Here's another. (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/STATECITIZENSHIP.html) This is admittedly a sideways approach to the question, as it addresses state rather than national citizenship. The relevant portion is:

12 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL

The Constitution of the United States (Article XIV of the Amendments) contains a definition of State Citizenship. It reads:

“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.”

The Supreme Court of the United States, in its opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, (i6 WaIl. 36) declared that one of the objects of this amendment was “to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and citizenship of the States, and that it recognized the distinction between citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States by those definitions.”

Note the definition of citizenship does NOT include children born abroad of American parents.

Your turn.

[Boyo Jim]

I actually found the words of Cecil himself (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020308.html) through a Google search: But who qualifies as a citizen? The 14th Amendment declares, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Your turn again...

[Boyo Jim]

and unadorned from Amendment 14, section 1 of the US Constitution (http://www.indepthinfo.com/constitution/amendments.shtml):

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.

::foot tapping:: still your turn :p

[sailor]

http://www.passportexpress.com/?page=abroad
Consular Report of Birth Abroad
This is a document issued by an American embassy or consulate reflecting the facts of a birth abroad of a child acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth through one or both parents being US Citizens at the time of the child's birth. This record, also known as an FS-240, along with the Certification of Birth, DS-1350, are acceptable as proof of birth and U.S. citizenship for all legal purposes. Note that acquiring nationality by place of birth (ius solis) is quite rare and the USA is much more the exception than the norm in this. The norm in most countries is the newborn gets the nationality of the parents (ius sanguinis), and the USA is no exception to this either.

The language of the distinction is quite clear: a citizen can be either natural or naturalized. Now, the child of US parents born a broed is a citizen. Are you claiming the child is not a "natural" citizen and is therefore "naturalized"?

[BobT]

The Naturalization Act of 1790 had a clause


``the
children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the
sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .''
1 Stat. 103, 104

Also there have been Supreme Court rulings stating that the 14th Amendment does not exclusively set down just who is a natural born citizen.

See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=401&page=815

[sailor]

To add to the above: one can be born a citizen by being born in the US or by being born to American parents. People born in the USA to American parents acquire citizenship for two reasons but of these reasons parents is more important than soil.

There are exceptions to people acquiring citizenship by ius solis and it is conceivable that the law could be changed to deny automatic citizenship to the children of aliens born in the USA. In fact, I remember this has already been discussed because of the children of illegal aliens acquiring citizenship at birth.

OTOH, it would go against hundreds of years of tradition and it would be inconceivable to deny citizenship to children born abroad to citizens. I do not know of any country which does this.

So, I believe there is the wide misconception in the USA that where you are born is the determinat factor when, in reality, who your parents are is much more important.

[Boyo Jim]

I don't deny that there are additional ways to acquire citizenship than what is spelled out in the Constitution. However, the question is whether those additional ways bestow "sufficient" citizenship to qualify the person to be President of the United States.

I think it's quite arguable that extra-constitutional laws or regulations are simply irrelevant to the question of Presidential qualification. Since the only constitutional amendment that defines citizenship DOESN'T include children of American born abroad, in order to change those qualifications, it may be that the constitution itself needs to be amended.

Please note, I am not claiming this is the case. I DO claim the question is still an open one, and maintaining this position is NOT a demonstration of "ignorance" on my part.

[sailor]

>> I don't deny that there are additional ways to acquire citizenship than what is spelled out in the Constitution

No, that is not the point. The point is that you are saying the child of US parents born abroad is not a "natural born citizen". So what is he? Naturalized? Chopped liver?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally posted by sailor
>> I don't deny that there are additional ways to acquire citizenship than what is spelled out in the Constitution

No, that is not the point. The point is that you are saying the child of US parents born abroad is not a "natural born citizen". So what is he? Naturalized? Chopped liver?

Actually, according to BobT's cite, naturalized, regarless of the quote pulled by BobT. Here is a fuller portion quoted:

"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 [401 U.S. 815, 841] 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."

The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, 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. (bolding mine)

I don't really want to continue to debate this. I simply wish you would withdraw your assertion that an opinion contrary to yours on this question is an ignorant one.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally posted by sailor
...The point is that you are saying the child of US parents born abroad is not a "natural born citizen" ...

And I never claimed this. YOU, in fact, claimed that such a child IS a natural birn citizen. I say that the child might not be, that the question remains open.

[sailor]

>> I don't really want to continue to debate this

. . . He said before continuing the debate *_*

Kidding aside, I agree we have pretty much exhausted the subject and we'll just have to amicably agree to disagree.

[Boyo Jim]

I would be a lot more amicable if you withdrew your statement about the ignorance of those (like me) who differ with your opinion.

[Truth Seeker]

I think that's game, set and match to you, Yojimboguy, very nice! In fact, you've convince me that someone claiming citizenship via blood is not recognized by the U.S. Constitution and that everyone not acquiring citizenship by being born on U.S. territory does not qualify for the U.S. presidency.

McCain is an interesting call. Based on Bellei and your other cites, it looks like he would only be a natural-born (as opposed to naturalized) citizen if anyone born in the canal zone qualified as a U.S. citizen, regardless of parentage. Certainly the plaintiff in Bellei wouldn't qualify.

[Mike H]

Not to add fuel to the fire or anything, but where does it say in the constitution that being born on US soil makes one a natural born citizen? There is the 14th ammendment sure, but it does not say anything about how this relates to being a "natural born citizen". Since the constitution does not define the term, why is the defintion "must be born on U.S. soil" any more or less legitimate than a definition that says "one may be born of US citizen parent(s)"? In the absense of a definition, it would seem that court rulings would provide an answer. Since there seems to be a lack of that, there is probably not a definitive answer to this question.
However, if we look at the intent of this clause;to remove foreign influence on the government; it would seem silly to exclude people who are only "foreign" with respect to their birthplace, and Americans in every other respect (who there parents are , raised and lived in America, etc.). True, this does not cover situations such as people born citizens who never come to live here, and would have been simpler if the Framers had made a residency requirement like they did for members of Congress. But I suspect the Framers thought that was implied by the term "natural born citizen". Situations such as that in the OP were anomolies in the 18th century: you grew up and were a national of where you were born (what with the rigor of travel etc.). Citizenship and nationality are now much more fluid and flexible things.
I'm of the opinion that even naturalized immigrants should be allowed to be President, but there should still be a citizenship and residency requirement , say 35 years. That would satisfy the Framer's original intent of requiring those who are of minimum age (to be President) to have lived in the US since birth, plus now allow those who have immigrated and established close ties to the US to be President. This would allow people such as Madeline Albright, who immigrated in childhood, to be President.
BTW, I realize this would require ammending the constitution. I also realize that Citizenship and Residency are not the same thing, but as I said, I believe the Framers thought the former implied the later (but not necessarily the reverse). Therefore, ammending the constitution to clarify things up a bit is probably in order.

Not that it will ever happen. :)

[Freddy the Pig]

In fairness, it should be pointed out that yojimboguy quoted from the dissenting opinion in Rogers v. Bellei, and the view that persons born overseas to American parents must be considered "naturalized" did not command the support of a majority of the court. The majority opinion saw the Fourteenth Amendment, in my opinion correctly, not as a definition of citizenship but as an iteration of two classes which neither Congress nor the states could ever exclude from citizenship. Children of Americans born overseas, in my opinion, may have their citizenship regulated or restricted by statute, but this does not make them either "naturalized" or not "natural born" for purposes of presidential eligibility. The law of 1790 is a powerful argument in favor of this viewpoint.

But the question certainly is not settled, and opposing viewpoints are by no means ignorant.

If only Romney had won in 1968!

[Boyo Jim]

I quoted from the dissent because it most clearly addressed the question at hand. And, IMO the subject addressed in my quote was not what was in dispute between the justices. Here is other relevant language from the majority opinion:

We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute...

But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

Therefor the majority also agrees that children born abroad of American citizens are "naturalized". And as most of us except sailor seem to agree, there's a reasonable chance that a court could find some legal distinction between "natural born" and "naturalized" citizenship as it applies to presidential qualification.

[sailor]

A foreign national needs to undergo a naturalization process in order to be naturalised. A child born to US parents abroad is born a US citizen and does not need to go through any naturalization process. To me that indicates quite clearly he is "naturally born a citizen" and not "naturalized" later. The US courts agree with this opinion and so does the Executive as you can see if you check out www.ins.usdoj.gov . That's good enough for me and I am very certain McCain *would* qualify to serve.

And, as I said, the US will sooner remove the granting of citizenship to children of foreign nationals born on US soil than the granting of US citizenship to children of US parents born abroad.

Having said that, I apologize for the tone of my earlier post which was unnecessary.

[sailor]

The naturalization process does not apply to those who were born American citizens. http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/index.htm

Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The general requirements for administrative naturalization include:

a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States;
residence in a particular INS District prior to filing;
an ability to read, write and speak English;
a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government;
good moral character;
attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and,
favorable disposition toward the United States.

All naturalization applicants must demonstrate good moral character, attachment, and favorable disposition.

[audit1]

If the matter came to court the court might decide they did not have jurisisdiction. The XXTH admenment says Congress shall decide if the President-elect or Vice-President Elect is qualified i.e. a natural born citizen , 35years of age, etc.

[John Mace]

John Smith was born in Germany to 2 American citizens. They were in Germany because one of John's parents was in the military and was stationed there. I would like to see a politician challenge John's eligibility to run for president. That guy would be fried by the public and disowned by his own party.

Gotta agree with sailor on this one. All the posts above indicate that anyone who was a citizen at birth is a naturally born citizen. The one post about being a citizen of a state vs the US is a moot point (12 Georgetown Law Journal). So what if you're not a citizen of a particular state? Where does it say you have to be a citizen of a state to run for president? Think about all those folks born and/or living in DC.

[BKABBY]

I must say, I should go to the SDMB for more of my factual questions, the feedback you've given me has been outstanding. Thanks a lot, this has been helpful. Just to let you know I haven't abandoned you.