The Constitution is quite clear that there are two ways to be a citizen- naturalization or birth. Naturalization is a process of law, the citizenship is man-made.
In the case of a person born here, their citizenship is given by nature, not man. Being born in the US means you are a citizen. Citizenship granted by nature by means of your birth.
(With the prior exceptions of children of diplomats, military, etc. NORAD is full of Canadians, their children born here are Canadian citizens.)
There are various scenarios of citizenship at birth. See the SC case referenced above. Specifically the bolded:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
If, as you claim, it was crystal clear, then the Supreme Court wouldn’t point to any doubts.
I think the founding fathers were looking at numerous European examples where the King parachuted in (or was parachuted). The Charles pretenders come to mind, William of Orange, the Georges Hanoverian, etc. They wanted the president to have a long-term connection to the country.
Later we see more examples (Maximilian of Mexico?).
you see the continuaton of this spirit in the laws passed by congress - you could be the child of Americans, and born abroad, and still be a citizen - but grandchildren were right out of it.
For example, I am a British (UK) citizen even though born in Canada, because my father (actually both parents) are British. I have no real other connection to Britain - my longest stay was 3 weeks, total maybe 6 weeks in my lifetime. As I understand their laws, I am sort-of a second class citizen. If I had returned to England at age 2, lived 50 years there, then went abroad and had children outside the UK - they would not be citizens. Somebody who left the UK at 3 months of age and never returned - their children are (second class) UK citizens. (Ironically, many of the pure British stock of Falkland Islanders found themselves technically ineligible to move to Britain because their parents were not born there. The British rules regarding colonies were arranged to prevent natives from the colonies ahving an easy route to automatic residency).
By the same token, if McCain had children outside the USA, or Cruz - those children would still be US citizens. There is not a second class of US citizen, with different rights to pass on citizenship. The only criteria to inheriting citizenship is the longer-term connection of your parents to the USA - specifically, residency and especially adult residency in the USA.
Which rule makes more sense? Hard to say. Each method has its good and bad points.
But as mentioned in an earlier post, ultimately it’s a political decision. When 50%+1 of the people (or rather, electoral college) decide the person is qualified to be president, they will already have considered and rejected the possibility the person might have been born in Kenya and so might be ineligible.
You are trying to say that a child born here of legal immigrant parents is not a citizen.
That’s a claim for which there is no caselaw, and no precedent. Doubts are not rulings.
No court has said that and no court ever will- because the Constitution doesn’t require it and the Founders did not intend that it do so.
The Founders KNEW that children would be born to immigrants, they counted on it.
To believe that any of the Founders thought those children should not be citizens is absurd- doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
No. I am saying it is not a given that such a child is a “natural born citizen”.
John McCain was not born in the US. He was born in Panama. The Canal Zone, US embassies, and US military bases are and were never part of the United States.
John McCain is a US citizen because his parents were US citizens, not because he was born in the United States.
Barack Obama is a US citizen because he was born in the United States.
They are both “natural born” citizens (in my opinion, and the opinion of most people) because they were US citizens at birth, and did not acquire US citizenship through naturalization.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to rule on such questions, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The Supreme Court also never issues advisory opinions, it only rules on actual cases.
So it is very hard to see under what circumstances the court would actually rule that a person was, or was not, a natural born citizen, since the precedent is that they refuse to issue such rulings.
Therefore, here in the actually existing world today, we’re in the wild west, and it is up to the individual voter, with no guidance from the Supreme Court, to enforce the “natural born” provision of the constitution.
If that means you refuse to vote for John McCain because, although he seems like a good candidate in other ways, he was born in Panama and therefore you think he should not be eligible to be President, then you are free to do so. And note that Congress believed that McCain was eligible and acted to declare him a natural born citizen.
Now, you can believe that Congress has no authority to rule that a particular person is a natural born citizen. Except if Congress isn’t qualified, and the Supreme Court refuses to answer, and the various 50 state electoral commissions don’t leave him off the ballot, then it’s up to the voters.
And that means, if you strongly believe a man like John McCain is not eligible to be president, you have to try to convince the voters. It’s not enough to simply assert that there is an argument that he isn’t eligible, you have to actually present the argument and the argument must be convincing.
If the argument isn’t convincing, then we’re back at the status quo.
As I said above, OK, let’s stipulate that it’s not a given.
So?
The case you cited above didn’t rule that such citizens were not natural born, it didn’t rule that if there was any doubt that a citizen was natural born that the citizen must not be natural born. It merely noted that some people might argue about it, but that such arguments were irrelevant to the actual case it was considering, and therefore the court did not need to decide on them.
The Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” as someone that no one can doubt they are a citizen. Because then all I have to do is come up with one person who doubts that I’m a citizen, and then I can’t be natural born because there exists a controversy.
The case somewhat supports my “interpretation” that the “natural born citizen” is someone that is “naturally” a citizen, without any doubts or law required to make him one.
When “doubt” is mentioned it is not one person. It is conceptual “doubt”. If you have a citizenship concept, and it is not “earned citizenship”, then the absolute base definition of citizen is someone who is born of two parent citizens, in the country. That’s the “natural” definition. All others can be quibbled about and allowed or not allowed, but this one is the basic, “natural” one.
What I don’t get is why it ultimately “matters”. It’s a technicality of a technicality.
What difference does it make where the man was at the instant of birth? Suppose he were born in the USA, but 5 minutes later was hauled off to some indoctrination camp run by a hostile foreign power for the next 20 years.
Versus the inverse : he exited his mother in a hostile foreign power, but 5 minutes later was rescued by seal team six, and he spent the rest of his life in AnyTown USA, becoming a football jock and attending Veteran’s day parades every year.
The whole argument is not one of “I have legitimate qualms about Obama’s qualifications and I want Congress to ignore him” but instead “I want him removed from power due to a technicality”.
Which begs the question…suppose a videotape of Obama being born in Kenya were to surface, and it was determined to be authentic. Who would become president now? Would Biden become president? Would the election be ruled invalid because one of the candidates was ineligible? Going to start a new thread on this.
What difference does it make if the man running for President is 34 years old and not 35?
The OP was triggered by questions about Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for president.
There’s glory for you.
I don’t agree that that’s the “natural” definition of citizenship. And neither does anyone else, only you and a few other people believe this.
No one outside of a few cranks made a peep when John McCain (born outside the country to two citizen parents) and Barack Obama (born in this country to a citizen parent and a non-citizen parent) ran for office. The entire country disagrees with your definition.
The supreme court doesn’t agree with you, congress doesn’t agree with you, the political parties don’t agree with you, the state ballot commissions don’t agree with you, and the American voters don’t agree with you.
So where does that put you?
Neither you nor I have any idea whether the Supreme Court agrees or disagrees with that definition. If they do or they do not, they haven’t told anyone. And I don’t really care that you disagree, I am not married to that definition, I am just suggesting it as a possible alternative, in the absence of any definitive decisions on the matter by anyone.
But by not ruling on the issue, they have not agreed with you. Maybe they would sometime in the future if they rule on the issue, but as of today they have not agreed with you. Of course, neither have the disagreed with you. But it’s pretty clear that for now into the foreseeable future neither of us is going to see a ruling from the court on this issue. And this is typical, the court refuses to rule on hundreds and thousands of issues every year. When the supreme court refuses cert, it means that since the lower court decision was not overturned, it stands.
In any case, the point remains: the Supreme Court isn’t going to enforce your idiosyncratic definition of “natural”, and so where does that put you?
Arguing pointlessly on an internet message board?
By the same logic, they haven’t agreed with you.
Exactly where I am. What’s your point?
Moderator Note
We have a forum for that, and it’s called Great Debates.
I think it’s probably time that this thread moved over there.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
In the limited circumstances being discussed, Terr is correct.
That’s my point. Constitutionally the term “natural born citizen” has a definition. It hasn’t been tested in court, so we don’t know what that definition is. So, either John McCain is, or is not, a natural born citizen. By passing a law granting citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone doesn’t (or shouldn’t) change that.
But it seems to. In any discussion about McCain (and now Ted Cruz) citizenship, we hear about how Congress passed a law making these people citizens. In my mind that’s irrelevant because either they are “natural born” under the constitution or not. Congress can’t apply that term any more than it can say that 25 years old is 35 years old.
Again, I think your confusing the definition with what the definition applies to. If the definition of natural born citizen is: “people that are born citizens”, then every time Congress changes the law changing who is born a citizen, they’re creating more or fewer people who are naturally born citizens. Ted Cruz wouldn’t be a citizen by birth under early immigration laws (which only passed citizenship through the father), but would if he was born after Congress changed the law. The definition isn’t changing, but whom it applies to changes as the law changes.
Treason is defined in the Constiution as aiding “the enemies of the United States”. A reasonable definition of “enemies” might be “countries Congress has declared war on”, but it isn’t explicit, and Courts have had to define it. If the US declares war on Canada, and then a court finds that that is indeed the definition, then by declaring war Congress is making people that continue to help Canada traitors. But they aren’t doing so by altering the Constitutional definition as determined by the Courts, they’re just creating a new place that definition applies to.
That seems like a distinction without a difference. If Congress passed a law that defined citizens as “all persons born on the planet earth after January 1, 1890, with said citizenship bestowed upon them at the time of their birth” would that be okay?
If so, it eviscerates any constitutional limitations and allows Congress to define constitutional terms. (IOW, Congress has now effectively eliminated the “natural born citizen” requirement for President)
What other terms can Congress “redefine” out of existence? It certainly cannot pass a law saying that “the term ‘persons’, as mentioned in the 14th amendment, is hereby defined as Marco Rubio and his mother, to the exclusion of all other natural persons.”
That’s the gist of what I’m getting towards. Congress is seemingly usurping its power by defining a constitutional term that is usually the province of the courts.