I have two questions, at least one of which has a factual answer. Is a person born in Puerto Rico a natural born citizen?
Second, exactly whose job is it to decide if someone is a natural born citizen? The courts, the voters, the electors, or finally the Senate that counts the votes?
One thing I do recall. When someone tried to keep Bobby Kennedy off the ballot when he ran for the senate on the grounds that he was not a bona fide resident of NY, the court said, in effect, “Let the voters decide”. The issue was not seriously raised, as I recall, when Hillary ran.
U.S. Federal law 8 U.S.C. § 1402 approved by the President Harry S. Truman on June 27, 1952 declared all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941 to be citizens of the U.S. at birth.
The agency with the power to determine if you are a citizen or not is the Department of Homeland Security, formerly the Immigration & Naturalization Service. In the event that their judgment is disputed, there are two level of administrative court: first, The Executive Office of Immigration Review then The Bureau of Immigration Appeals. From the BIA, appeal is taken to the Federal Court of Appeals located in the circuit where the dispute arose. From the Federal Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court has the final authority.
But citizenship is not the same as natural born citizenship. The latter is a more circumscribed and vague category within citizenship.
We don’t actually know who decides who is a natural born citizen. It may be that if this issue was properly presented to a court (e.g. by someone with standing to sue), they would decide it. Or it may be that they would decide the question is not for the courts, and leave it to Congress to define the term by statute or to the political process of elections.
Wouldn’t “a natural born citizen” be “someone who was a citizen from birth”? In which case, Hello Again answered the OP in the first paragraph and the second one was just further information as to exactly what agencies and courts could clarify whether someone whose natural-citizenship is in doubt is, in fact a citizen and has been one from birth.
Anecdotally speaking, the State Department seems to content to let it remain vague until decided by the courts. When our daughter was born in London, she was a US citizen from birth due to having two US citizen parents (both of us born in the US). However, we were told (via a brief note) that the issue of whether she would be considered a “natural-born” citizen for the purposes of holding public office (where a requirement) had not yet been definitively determined or tested in court.
Not exactly. The general rule in US law is that the courts have the ultimate say on the meaning of terms in the Constitution. Some terms are left to Congress to define, either explicitly or because the Supreme Court rules that it is inappropriate for the courts to define and enforce the term.
“Natural born citizen” is a constitutional term. Therefore, courts get the ultimate say in what it means. As stated earlier, it is possible that the Supreme Court would rule that it is a part of the Constitution that will not be enforced by the courts (another example of this is the Republican Guaranty clause). But in the absence of a such a ruling, the presumption is that the courts and not Congress get to decide the meaning.
Are there reasons that natural born citizen might not mean citizen at birth? Yes. Some argue that the point of the term is to ensure that only certain kinds of citizens can become President, namely those born inside the US or who were citizens when the US was formed. There is a colorable argument that even though Congress has defined citizenship to include citizens born to US mothers in other countries, the Constitution didn’t want such people to become President. I don’t personally find that argument persuasive, but it is the courts and not I that get to decide.
Doesn’t it just depend on the purpose for which one wants to show citizenship? If it’s to work in the U.S. then a birth certificate of any place in the U.S. “proves” that you’re a natural-born citizen. You don’t need to go to any court or DHS to satisfy a prospective employer.
And what’s the point, anyway? Citizenship requirements (and birth-right, in the case of presidential bids) are just one way to draw a line. Suppose someone is born in Windsor, Canada, and at the age of, let’s say, one week, he or she somehow gets into Detroit with all documents lost in the process, and is brought up by a U.S. family who somehow replace those documents with court-issued U.S. documents. For all practical purposes that person is as good as anyone born in the U.S. proper for employment, elected office, etc. It’s not like Canadian intelligence is going to infiltrate the U.S. government by sending implants across the border.
Oddly enough, in the 2008 election one of the main candidates was born outside the US to US-citizen parents (and no, I don’t mean Barack Obama!). The courts did not pronounce on the issue, because it wasn’t raised, but no one seems to seriously suggest that Senator McCain isn’t a natural born citizen of the US.
Not true, actually. Many people have seriously suggested so. Mostly immigration law academics (who didn’t actually want McCain ruled ineligible but find the issue interesting) and loons. The loons did bring the issue to court, but the court rejected the standing of the loons to challenge McCain’s natural born citizenship. If you’ll recall, the Senate even passed a special resolution declaring McCain to be a natural born citizen (not that it would have any constitutional effect).
Uh, what? No. I was responding to the claim that “no one seems to seriously suggest that Senator McCain isn’t a natural born citizen of the US.” Some people did seriously suggest it, in court no less. Prompting the US Senate to pass a resolution on the matter.
Although you raise an interesting side issue, which is whether the Coco Solo Air Base counts as being inside the territorial US. We did some good threads on this during the election, if you search for 'em.
Here are the two threads from previous discussions:
To head off any renewed misunderstanding, I don’t think McCain should have been disqualified from running for President. I’m only trying to make the academic point about how the Constitution is properly interpreted, by whom, and what arguments there are about this clause.
