# Foreigners Becoming President (of the USA) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 24, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572 "2003-01-24T00:12:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572/41 "2003-01-25T04:00:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mike\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_H)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572/42 "2003-01-25T04:03:14Z")
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. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572/43 "2003-01-25T04:20:39Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572/44 "2003-01-25T11:07:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572/45 "2003-01-25T11:08:25Z")
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](http://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. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572/46 "2003-01-25T11:15:58Z")
The naturalization process does not apply to those who were born American citizens. > [@](#): > > [http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/index.htm](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. ---
**Author:** ![audit1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@audit1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audit1)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572/47 "2003-01-25T15:34:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572/48 "2003-01-25T15:52:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BKABBY](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ab097/32.png) [@BKABBY](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BKABBY)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572/49 "2003-01-25T21:50:59Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/foreigners-becoming-president-of-the-usa/150572.md?page=2)