So let’s say I’m 35 and I was born here in the USA. My mother was born here, but my father was born in Cuba, and became a citizen of the US years after I was born. Can I legally run for president?
What is the definition of a “natural born citizen”? My boyfriend’s father claims that in the constitution, there isn’t an official definition, but there was a supreme court case back in the 1800s that defined it as someone who was born in the US and whose parents were both citizens of the US and that hasn’t been changed since.
Is this just conspiracy or is there some legal basis for this? Vote Akimaii for 2016!
If you were born in this country, or in one of its territories (such as the Panama Canal Zone but not Kenya, if I remember some nonsense from about four years back) you are a Natural Born Citizen. I do not believe the citizenship status of your parents is relevant to it.
I do not believe the Supreme Court has ever issued any such decision. Suggest you ask your boyfriend’s father for the exact name of the decision as otherwise. Predict he will say you should look it up for yourself but please do not be fooled by that as you are not making the claim he is and so he is the one who has to prove what he is saying. It is very common for people who do not like Barack Obama for racist reasons to make the exact claim you have just quoted because it is taylor-made to cut him down.
Just looked up natural born citizen on Wikipedia. Do not see any reference to the ruling your boyfriend’s father talked about. Here is the link if you want it. Many good references at the end.
You’re eligible. Go nuts. While it’s not explicitly stated in the Constitution, you are considered “natural born” if you were born on US soil. You can even be born on foreign soil, should your parents meet certain criteria.
There’s no ruling that your parents have to be natural-born citizens if you are born on US soil. Otherwise, our current POTUS would never have been eligible (and I risk the wrath of some of the nuttier birthers even mentioning that).
Thanks for your replies. I know that my boyfriend’s father is into many conspiracy theories so I doubted this from the beginning, but I was curious. Though he does believe that Obama legally shouldn’t have qualified for the presidency, he also believes that Romney isn’t eligible because his father was born in Mexico and may not have become a citizen by the time of his son’s birth.
All this to say that I don’t think my boyfriend is a right wing conspiracy nut, but into any and all conspiracies in general. I’ll ask him if he can come up with the supreme court case.
If Mitt Romney’s mother secretly drove south to Canada to give birth to him, but pretended that he was really born in Detroit, Michigan, there might be a question about his parents citizenship. (And that’s a much more likely theory than Barack Obama’s mother flying to Kenya.) However, given that he was born in the United States, and his parents were not diplomatic or consular officials, he’s a natural-born citizen.
Actually, birth in the Panama Canal Zone by itself did not confer U.S. citizenship. John McCain, who was born in the Canal Zone, was a U.S. citizen because his parents were U.S. citizens. It had nothing to do with his birth in the Zone. (Technically, under the laws prevailing at the time of his birth, McCain might not have qualified for citizenship at all; however, the law was changed retroactively so he did*.)
*Although it has been disputed by some that he would qualify as a natural born citizen.
Thank you. I had more important things at the time to commit to long-term memory than the details of that kerfluffle, so I only vaguely remember what I had overheard.
Your boyfriend’s father is probably referring to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which was decided by the Supreme Court in 1898, although his statement of the decision is incorrect. The court ruled that anyone born in the United States (with certain very limited exceptions, such as children of diplomats), is a citizen, even if neither of the parents is a citizen. This is the ruling that has never been changed or seriously questioned.
On this basis, the person in your hypothetical example has been a citizen since birth and could run for president.
Most likely, he’s actually referring to a piece of birther nonsense more recently in the news, citingthe 1875 case Minor vs. Happersett, which was discussed on these very boards. Short version for people who don’t want to follow all the links: the Court was discussing the various common definitions of citizenship for purposes of adjudicating a question of women’s suffrage under the equal protection clause, and basically decided that since both jus soli and jus sanguinis applied, that there was no reasonable grounds to question the complainant’s citizenship. The briefly mentioned as an aside that there were some who thought that jus solis alone wouldn’t qualify someone for natural-born citizenship for purposes of qualifying for the Presidency, and some that thought it did; and specifically disclaimed their choice of using both in this decision from applying to that question, since it wasn’t relevant to the current case in any way. (Which makes me wonder why the mentioned it, but anyway …)
There are many court cases on who is or is not a US Citizen. There are none on who is or is not a “natural born citizen". The distinction is apparently not trivial.
Actually, Mitt Romney’s father George actually was involved in something like this when he ran for president in 1968. He was born in Mexico; his parents were Mormons who set up in a colony down there. They moved back to the US. People raised this at the time, but no one was crazy enough to take it seriously; it was just a trivial nitpick that amused people.
There’s never been a ruling on what exactly “natural born” means, but most scholars think it would essentially mean you are a citizen and recognized as such, without ever having to take out any papers to do so.
The OP says, “Became a citizen of the US years after,” this means at one time you were not a citizen.
As far as I can tell Obama has never taken out any papers to become a citizen. Has he? If so then he is a natural born citizen. The fact that no challenge to his citizenship has been successful, means precedent is established.
I think the Supreme Court would be hard pressed to invalidate any person but the most obvious, from an honest fairly won election. So if you run and people vote for you fair and square, I would guess as long as it’s not a blatant violation, your election would be upheld
But… We would need to know if Ma Romney drove south to Canada with young Willie strapped to the roof of the family car! If so, it might make him a very unnatural citizen.
ETA: Wait a minute! I mean, if she drove back to Detroit with young Willie strapped to the roof of the car.
