# Are the 'rules' about citizenship different for Presidents? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 23, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353 "2012-01-23T01:38:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/21 "2012-01-23T15:59:00Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > Yeah. Didn’t think so. Um, how about the [Congressional Research Service](http://www.legistorm.com/score_crs/show/id/82388.html), which goes on to say: > [@](#): > > Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term natural born in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent). > [@](#): > > So these are cases you admit were never taken seriously or seriously challenged. How exactly is that relevant to the situation at hand? Isn’t the fact they were never taken seriously rather telling? Telling of what? > [@](#): > > Again, THIS… > > ..and this: Your problem is you assume smart people can’t speculate on vague parts of the Constitution (like the natural born citizen clause) without being “birthers.” People have, believe it or not, talked about the natural born citizen clause in the past, before anyone even knew who Barack Obama was. It has **never** been formally settled that to be a natural born citizen just means you were entitled to the rights of citizenship at birth, so to say that “anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn’t be listened to” is well, stupid. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/22 "2012-01-23T16:34:28Z")
I’ve a U.S. citizen daughter born overseas in mid 1990’s. What two consular officials told me (though it slightly contradicts law posted here) is that U.S. citizenship would be automatic if the _mother_ were a citizen, but requires father to apply for some “Notification of Birth” certificate if only the _father_ is a Citizen. And, yes, my daughter is eligible for Presidency. > [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > … “five after the age of fourteen” … The problem there is that when Barack was born, his mother was 19. She could not have lived in the United States for five years after her 14th birthday as was required by the law in 1961. By my count, 19-14 ≥ 5. Unless “after age 14” means “on or after _15th_ birthday.” ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/23 "2012-01-23T16:45:31Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > It has **never** been formally settled that to be a natural born citizen just means you were entitled to the rights of citizenship at birth, so to say that “anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn’t be listened to” is well, stupid. U.S. law works in the opposite way of this argument. Courts have had chances to rule that a third class of citizenship exists. They never have. Until they do, only two exist. Everyone is free to argue about possible exceptions. Federal courts exist mainly in the real world to apply rulings about cases on the line, so those arguments have real world consequences. But this particular argument is not on a line. Under current law, if Obama is not a natural-born citizen he is not a citizen at all of any kind since he has never been naturalized. That’s what Birthers are arguing, whether they know it or not. Nobody outside of that hate group believes that. No lawyers, or judges, or constitutional scholars with comprehension of law beyond that of Orly Taitz side with this. Nobody is saying that there aren’t worthwhile cases of citizenship for the courts to hear. They do say that for this particular case “anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn’t be listened to” because it is, in fact, stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/24 "2012-01-23T18:42:39Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > By my count, 19-14 ≥ 5. Unless “after age 14” means “on or after _15th_ birthday.” Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was born [November 29, 1942](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham). Barack Obama was born [August 4, 1961](http://www.biography.com/people/barack-obama-12782369). She was 18 when he was born. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/25 "2012-01-23T20:54:29Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > No, the first seven Presidents were eligible because of the special rule in the Constitution: they were citizens at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution, as set out in [Article II](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office). Thanks for the clarification. Did this effect Goldwater? (IOW was my original logic sound) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/26 "2012-01-24T02:01:40Z")
No, that clause would not have assisted Goldwater, because he was not living at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. To be eligible for the Presidency, he had to be a natural born citizen, same as McCain and Obama. Does that term include people born in a territory under US control, but not part of a state? That’s what others are discussing in this thread. As far as I know, no court has ever ruled on that issue. But note the point **Expano Mapcase** makes: if Goldwater was not a natural-born citizen, then neither was he a citizen at all, since he never applied to be naturalised. That would have meant that he held his Senate seat under false pretences, [since one must be a citizen (of one type or the other) to be a citizen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Qualifications_of_Senators). ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/27 "2012-01-24T02:08:35Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Does that term include people born in a territory under US control, but not part of a state? That’s what others are discussing in this thread. As far as I know, no court has ever ruled on that issue. There are also different types of territories. Arizona, at the time of Goldwater’s birth, was an incorporated territory, which meant that it was “in the United States” for the purposes of the 14th Amendment, the same as any state. All of the currently-inhabited territories are unincorporated territories, which are outside of the United States and where there is no constitutional right to citizenship by birth (Congress has granted it anyways in every territory except American Samoa, but historically most residents of places like Cuba and the Philippines were never US citizens). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/28 "2012-01-24T03:10:38Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But note the point **Expano Mapcase** makes: if Goldwater was not a natural-born citizen, then neither was he a citizen at all, since he never applied to be naturalised. That would have meant that he held his Senate seat under false pretences, [since one must be a citizen (of one type or the other) to be a citizen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Qualifications_of_Senators). And of course this applies also to Obama, who was a Senator. None of Martin Hyde’s “marginal” cases can stand up to any scrutiny. 1. George Romney - Never was on a ticket. 2. Barry Goldwater - As noted by Lord Feldon, the Arizona territory unquestionably qualified its newborns as natural-born and he was also a Senator earlier. 3. Al Gore - Unimaginable that the Founding Fathers meant to exclude children born in Washington, D.C. from citizenship and he was also a Senator earlier. 4. Chester A. Arthur - Subject to ludicrous attacks and rumors by political enemies, so that does provide similarities to Obama, but that’s as far as the case goes. Although they may qualify as trivia quiz material or fodder for message board discussions, no major party candidate in history has ever been thought of - except by cranks or political scoundrels - to be unqualified to any degree for the presidency because of lack of citizenship. There are no marginal cases. The courts have never expanded the meaning of natural-born for any candidate. There is no case to make for the other side of this. Birtherism is pure, irrational hate speech. It cannot be made legitimate by any rational argument. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/29 "2012-01-24T03:17:20Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Um, how about the [Congressional Research Service](http://www.legistorm.com/score_crs/show/id/82388.html) That website is a database providing information about Congress, not the “serious constitutional scholars” (your words) who have been debating what the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is that I asked you to to name. I also asked you to provide an example of > [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > …any action taken by a Federal court creating any class of citizenship other than natural born citizen and naturalized citizen? You didn’t do that either because, as has been pointed out several times, no Federal court has done any such thing. If you are a citizen, you are one of the two under the laws of this country. Those are the only choices. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Your problem is you assume smart people can’t speculate on vague parts of the Constitution (like the natural born citizen clause) without being “birthers.” People have, believe it or not, talked about the natural born citizen clause in the past, before anyone even knew who Barack Obama was. _My problem_ is that the only reason this topic is being discussed in 2012 is because Barack Obama was elected POTUS and a small, but extremely vocal group of right wingers can’t get over the fact their guy lost. That’s it. There was not some unresolved debate going on in legal or academic circles prior to Obama running for President. If there was, please provide a link or cite showing otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![ShannonR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ab097/32.png) [@ShannonR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShannonR)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/30 "2012-01-24T20:01:12Z")
Kolak, I figured ‘sour grapes’ was part of it. And I’ll play a card nobody likes, but one that’s real…I don’t think we’d hear half of the vitriol we’re hearing about Obama if he didn’t look different from ‘their’ guy…apparently some people only think white men are worth voting for…sad that this sort of crap still goes on in 2012, but oh well. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/31 "2012-01-24T21:12:38Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The short answer is that U.S. law has only two classes of citizenship: natural-born citizen and naturalized citizen. You can only be one or the other. If you don’t need to be naturalized to attain citizenship, then you are a natural-born citizen and eligible to be president. This opinion is certainly defensible, but it’s not an authoritative statement of law. No court has ever decided whether or not “natural-born citizen” as used in the Constitution is coterminous with “citizen by birth” as used in the US Code. No court has ever been called upon to determine what “natural-born citizen” as used in the Constitution means at all. The only correct statement one can make is that we cannot state with certainty what the Constitutional language means. (Personally, I’m hard-pressed to see how anyone could argue that someone born in the US and a citizen at birth via _jus solis_ and the 14th Amendment is _not_ a natural-born citizen, but some of the _jus sanguinis_ situations might potentially be murkier). Similarly, whether or not Goldwater was a “citizen” for purposes of Article I and statutory law does not speak to whether he was a natural-born citizen for purposes of Article II. One problem with **Exapno** ’s argument, for instance, is that it means that the scope of the Constitutional provision is not fixed but can be varied by statute, whenever Congress sees fit to change the scope of “citizenship by birth” (within the limits of the 14th Amendment). That’s a departure from the way constitutional law typically works. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/32 "2012-01-25T11:55:21Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > You might want to read the following: > [Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad](http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html) > It is NOT true that just because both of your parents are US citizens, then you are a US citizen. If this were true, nearly everyone in Liberia would be a US citizen. (Liberia was a colony founded by former US slaves. If all the founders were citizens, then their children would all be citizens. And if all their children were citizens, then all of the next generation would be citizens, and so on.) Well mate, since only a small minority of Liberians today are descended from the US Slave emigrants - versus indigenous population that never were US slaves, only a small minority could possibly pretend to US citizenship. And then those who are descended from two putative US citizens must be even smaller. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/33 "2012-01-26T07:22:34Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > This opinion is certainly defensible, but it’s not an authoritative statement of law. No court has ever decided whether or not “natural-born citizen” as used in the Constitution is coterminous with “citizen by birth” as used in the US Code. No court has ever been called upon to determine what “natural-born citizen” as used in the Constitution means at all. The only correct statement one can make is that we cannot state with certainty what the Constitutional language means. (Personally, I’m hard-pressed to see how anyone could argue that someone born in the US and a citizen at birth via _jus solis_ and the 14th Amendment is _not_ a natural-born citizen, but some of the _jus sanguinis_ situations might potentially be murkier). Maybe I’m missing something but isn’t that the point **Exapno** was making? If you have citizenship in the U.S. you either have it by birth or by naturalization. Failure to define every vague term or phrase in the Constitution doesn’t mean every possible interpretation exists simultaneously until it is eliminated by ruling of a Federal court. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/34 "2012-01-26T07:37:33Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > You might want to read the following: > [Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad](http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html) > It is NOT true that just because both of your parents are US citizens, then you are a US citizen. If this were true, nearly everyone in Liberia would be a US citizen. (Liberia was a colony founded by former US slaves. If all the founders were citizens, then their children would all be citizens. And if all their children were citizens, then all of the next generation would be citizens, and so on.) > > There is no question in the minds of any rational person that if Barack Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii that he is a citizen. The legitimate question is whether, if this was all a big hoax with fake short-form birth certificates and fake birth announcements placed in 1961 and Obama really had been born in Kenya, would he be a citizen. The problem there is that when Barack was born, his mother was 19. She could not have lived in the United States for five years after her 14th birthday as was required by the law in 1961. EXCEPT Obama’s dad was married to another woman at the time so it is an open question as to whether or not they were legally married. If not, the law a the time was that the child had the mother’s nationality automatically and therefore he would be an NBC. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/35 "2012-01-26T07:42:51Z")
IIRC, wasn’t Chester A. Arthur’s father an Irish immigrant? ---
**Author:** ![ShannonR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ab097/32.png) [@ShannonR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShannonR)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/36 "2012-01-26T17:50:31Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > IIRC, wasn’t Chester A. Arthur’s father an Irish immigrant? I think so…but it doesn’t much matter because apparently to some people it’s okay for anyone _else_ to have parents from another country…just not _Obama_. Some people just hate that one of ‘them’ (and ‘them’ can mean a variety of things) got elected, so any nitpick they can come up with to toss at him is fair game. While I do lean more toward the left, I don’t appreciate dirty politics like this. For instance, some of the nasty things that were said about McCain and family in the 2000 election were completely out of line. There’s just no point to it all. I know I’d lose because of the game but, if I were a politician, I’d spend a lot more time talking about myself and what I would do than I would taking potshots at other people. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353/37 "2012-01-26T18:27:39Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > Failure to define every vague term or phrase in the Constitution doesn’t mean every possible interpretation exists simultaneously until it is eliminated by ruling of a Federal court. The problem is that there’s no basis for privileging **Exapno** ’s interpretation over any other. Congress’ use of a similar term in a different context in the US Code is not binding upon constitutional meaning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-rules-about-citizenship-different-for-presidents/610353.md?page=1)