Presidental election scenario

[MsRobyn]

This came up in a sociology class.

Let’s say there is a child born to a couple. The father is an American soldier stationed overseas, and the mother is a foreign national. The child is born in an American military hospital on the installation. I know that the child is an American citizen, but would he be eligible for the Presidency? Or would the fact that his mother is a foreign national be a dealbreaker?

I also know that President Obama’s father was not a citizen, but the president was born in Hawaii. I’m asking about a child born overseas, on a military installation.

[Chronos]

A natural-born citizen means someone who is a citizen by virtue of the circumstances of their birth. Your hypothetical child is a citizen by virtue of birth, and is therefore a natural-born citizen. Despite what some people may claim to think, the citizenship status of the parent or parents is not a disqualification to the Presidency.

[septimus]

IANAL but am a U.S. citizen whose children were born overseas to a foreign mother. Multiple U.S. officials have provided me an answer to your question (though with no military hospital involved).

My children become “natural-born U.S. citizens” eligible for the U.S. Presidency as soon as I register their births at a U.S. Consulate.

The law is gender-conscious. If the American parent is the mother rather than the father, natural-born citizenship is automatic, rather than contingent on notifying Consulate officially. (Some say this law discriminates by gender. I disagree: it is absurd to pretend mothership and fathership are identical roles.)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@septimus

The law is gender-conscious. If the American parent is the mother rather than the father, natural-born citizenship is automatic, rather than contingent on notifying Consulate officially. (Some say this law discriminates by gender. I disagree: it is absurd to pretend mothership and fathership are identical roles.)

That’s not a law; that’s a procedural issue- and I am highly dubious that it’s even what you were told. The law makes no such distinction, at least not for the purposes of births after 1934. 8 U.S.C. §1401 (the Immigration and Naturalization Act):

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical- presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

[MikeS]

Chronos’s post is the closest thing you’re going to get to a definitive answer, but there’s an important caveat. The pertinent section of the Constitution is

@the Founding Fathers

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…

It seems to be the generally accepted opinion among legal scholars that a “natural born citizen” is someone who has citizenship by birth. However, there has never been a court ruling addressing this subject directly. It’s conceivable (though highly unlikely) that a presidential eligibility case of the type you describe could come before the Supreme Court some day, and that the court could decide that the phrase means something subtly (or even wildly) different.

For more information, check out the Wikipedia article on “natural born citizens”.

[UDS]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

@septimus

The law is gender-conscious. If the American parent is the mother rather than the father, natural-born citizenship is automatic, rather than contingent on notifying Consulate officially. (Some say this law discriminates by gender. I disagree: it is absurd to pretend mothership and fathership are identical roles.)

That’s not a law; that’s a procedural issue- and I am highly dubious that it’s even what you were told. The law makes no such distinction, at least not for the purposes of births after 1934 . 8 U.S.C. §1401 (the Immigration and Naturalization Act) . . .

And not only does the law make no distinction based on the sex of the parent, but it also provides no case in which citizenship is contingent on consular notification, registration or anything of the kind. In every case listed, citizenship is the outcome of descent and/or circumstances of birth. You don’t become a citizen because you have registered; rather, you are entitled to register because you are already a citizen.

[Monty]

@MsRobyn

This came up in a sociology class.

Let’s say there is a child born to a couple. The father is an American soldier stationed overseas, and the mother is a foreign national. The child is born in an American military hospital on the installation.

{Snip}

I’m asking about a child born overseas, on a military installation.

Overseas bases of the United States Armed Forces are not United States territory. They are the territory of the hosting nation. It’s not the place of birth in your scenario, but rather the citizenship of the parent, that confers citizenship on the child.

Now, there are situations in which the US parent may not meet the requirements to confer citizenship on the child.

[silenus]

@Monty

Now, there are situations in which the US parent may not meet the requirements to confer citizenship on the child.

I was just trying to braindrizzle such a scenario. How about: two 16 year old children of US Consular officers who have never lived in the US (but are citizens by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) have a child overseas. Would that child be a “natural-born” citizen of the US?

[Polycarp]

@MikeS

Chronos’s post is the closest thing you’re going to get to a definitive answer, but there’s an important caveat. The pertinent section of the Constitution is

@the Founding Fathers

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…

It seems to be the generally accepted opinion among legal scholars that a “natural born citizen” is someone who has citizenship by birth. However, there has never been a court ruling addressing this subject directly. It’s conceivable (though highly unlikely) that a presidential eligibility case of the type you describe could come before the Supreme Court some day, and that the court could decide that the phrase means something subtly (or even wildly) different.

For more information, check out the Wikipedia article on “natural born citizens”.

Your point that the courts (or Congress) have never defined “natural born citizen” is well taken. However – and I’m relying on some material presented during the Birther discussions here for this, so I don’t have a cite ready at hand – IIRC the courts have ruled that decisions on Presidential eligibility are “political questions” for which Congress, in its capacity as judge of electoral votes, is the proper venue, and the courts will not attempt to second-guess them. Are there other areas of the law in which the distinction between :natural-born" and naturalized is relevant?

[UDS]

@silenus

@Monty

Now, there are situations in which the US parent may not meet the requirements to confer citizenship on the child.

I was just trying to braindrizzle such a scenario. How about: two 16 year old children of US Consular officers who have never lived in the US (but are citizens by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) have a child overseas. Would that child be a “natural-born” citizen of the US?

Depends on what you mean by “consular officer”.

If one of the parents is a State Department employee working in a consular position, they could claim their period of employment as “residence” in the US, even though they are actually abroad. However it strikes me as highly unlikely than a consular employee of the State Department has never lived in the US. You don;t get an overseas consular posting without having gone through training, supervision, etc.

If you’re talking about honorary consuls, they’re not employees, and their period of service doesn’t count towards “residence”.

[suranyi]

deleted

[Chronos]

I believe that there is a requirement that one of the parents must have lived in the US for some period of time in order to confer citizenship on the child. So if neither parent has ever been in the US, the child would not have birthright citizenship.

[flodnak]

@silenus

How about: two 16 year old children of US Consular officers who have never lived in the US (but are citizens by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) have a child overseas. Would that child be a “natural-born” citizen of the US?

No, and the age of the parents is irrelevant in this situation. If two US citizen parents have a child outside the US, one of them must have had a residence in the US prior to the birth of the child in order to confer birthright citizenship. How long that residence must be is not specified, but it has to be actual residence. Summer visits to grandparents, for instance, don’t count.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Chronos

I believe that there is a requirement that one of the parents must have lived in the US for some period of time in order to confer citizenship on the child. So if neither parent has ever been in the US, the child would not have birthright citizenship.

Except as provided in subsection (h) above.

[suranyi]

@Polycarp

Are there other areas of the law in which the distinction between :natural-born" and naturalized is relevant?

No, and that’s what makes this question so hard to answer definitively. The only case where there there is a difference between a naturalized citizen and a natural-born citizen is in the qualifications for presidency (and vice-presidency). So in everyday life it simply never comes up.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That’s not quite true; naturalized citizens are not eligible to serve in certain sensitive roles, like intelligence posts.