The current Premier of New South Wales (Kristina Keneally) renounced her U.S. citizenship after being naturalised as an Australian citizen and before becoming a member of the N.S.W. Parliament. She may have done so with an eye on running for the federal Parliament (federal MPs in Australia may not be citizens of another country), since New South Wales does not appear to forbid dual citizens being MPs, though they cannot become a citizen of another country while an MP:
(CONSTITUTION ACT 1902 (N.S.W.))
So Keneally may have been over-cautious legally, or may have just wanted to avoid public perception that her loyalty remained partly to the U.S.
Looking through the Presidential elections for the era, the closest I can find is John Nance Garner (Vice President during FDR’s first two terms), who was born in Texas in 1868, after the Civil War but before Texas was readmitted into the Union.
He is best known for declaring the Vice Presidential office to be “not worth a pitcher of warm piss” (sometimes bowdlerized to “spit”).
Gets funnier than that. The 1952 law indeed extended the definition of US soil for jus solis US citizenship “birthright”, to the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico retroactively to Jan. 1941, but what it did was make permanent and general a provision that had been partly in effect previously.
BEFORE that, on 2 March 1917 an Act of Congress had made all the then-citizens of Puerto Rico be US citizens, but as it were by decree rather than birthright. That 1917 statute then required amending in the 1930s and early 40s because someone noticed that there were gaps in who met what definitions in the various statutes (e.g. not all PRicans were permanent residents IN Puerto Rico or US Territory, and there were people born in PR NOT to Puerto Rican or other US nationals) so there were people in nationality limbo.
The later statute did still give every legal resident of PR as of April 1899(*) (who did not affirmatively retain allegiance to Spain), or those born here between then and Jan. of 1941(**), the status of citizen, “by Act of Congress”.
(* e.g. my late paternal grandfather)
(** e.g. my father)
Many of our political blatherers make a huge brouhaha as to whether this all means ours is “merely” a “statutary” rather than “constitutional” citizenship. My answer to that is firstly, ALL citizenship is both statutary, because a statute defines specifically when, where and how you become a citizen, and constitutional because it is the Constitution gives Congress the power to make the citizenship statutes; and secondly that the jurisprudence as it stands is that a born US citizen cannot be just arbitrarily stripped of citizenship, so the PR birthright citizenship provision could be repealed, but only prospectively, applying to anyone born after H-hour on R-day.
A couple of comments on peripheral issues raised here.
Despite one posting, when my son was born in Switzerland, I took his German language birth certificate to the local consulate and they issued a document titled something like, Birth of a US citizen born abroad. My wife and I both had to fill in forms attesting to having lived in the US for however many years was required and they issued the form without any certified translation. He used for passport purposes and has never needed his Swiss birth certificate.
Although there would appear to be no requirement that a natural born US citizen renounce foreign citizenships, some countries do require it. The woman who was president of Latvia for (I think) 10 years, was a citizen and long time resident of Canada and was required to renounce Canadian citizenship.
It is possible to renounce US citizenship without having another. A PhD student of mine, got a notice in 1969 to report for a draft physical, crossed the border to Windsor (he lived in Detroit), got on a train to Montreal and, a few days later went to the US consulate here and renounced his citizenship. Aside from a remark that they usually did it when they got to Windsor, the consular officials accepted the renunciation without quibble. Until he became a Canadian citizen, he had to travel on something called, IIRC, a “Nansen passport” which required a visa to visit any other country and Canada had to certify that he could return. This was a particular nuisance because the woman he met and married here was Italian and they visited Italy every summer.
It also used to be that you automatically lost your citizenship if you applied for and received citizenship in any other country (the “applied for” was a serious requirement as there was at least one country (Israel) that conferred citizenship automatically on anyone who resided there a certain length of time–one year I think. This automatic loss ended sometime in the '80s as a result of a Supreme Court ruling. I finally became a Canadian citizen a year ago. When a border guard asked for my status in Canada, after I had presented a US passport, I replied, “Dual citizen”, he nodded and didn’t continue to question me.
As I said, I don’t recall the name. But it wasn’t Garner or anyone who was actually nominated. It was somebody who was attempting to get nominated.
If anyone’s really interested, I remember posting it in a previous thread when the memory was fresher. But I’m not going to search through a bunch of birther threads to find it.
So what about all those offspring to the second generation of British citizens? I assume there’s a lot in Australia… Or does being a subject of another of the queen’s dominions not count as “foreign prince or power”? AFAIK there’s no way for me to get rid of my British citizenship, even though I have visited the land 4 times for a total of maybe 2 months in over 50 years.
The NSW legislation quoted doesn’t impose any disability on anyone simply for having a second nationality; just for taking active steps to acquire one. So a British or other foreign national can be elected to the NSW parliament.
By contrast, the Commonwealth Constitution excludes you from being a member of the Commonwealth Parliament simply for having a foreign nationality. British nationality is a foreign nationality for these purposes; one MP has in fact been expelled for being a British national. The same would go for any other country of which the British queen is also queen.
So if you hold British or other foreign nationality (as well as Australian nationality, naturally) and you want to become a member of the Australian Parliament, you need to take steps to renounce your foreign nationality before being nominated for election. The High Court has held that taking “all reasonable steps” to renounce your foreign nationality is sufficient, even those steps are ineffective as a matter of the law of the country concerned. If you repudiate your allegiance to, e.g., the UK then Australian law does not treat you as a British citizen for these purposes, even if UK law continues to regard you as a British citizen.
Seriously, don’t engage in this debate. Call them “stupid” and move on. They won’t read your evidence nor look at the links. The issue is not the law, it’s them.
Well, here is another question. Say my friend’s daughter decides when she grows up that she wants to run for president.
No, not that daughter, the other one–the one she adopted from China.
I know that in domestic adoptions the original birth certificate is sealed, and the adoptive birth cert looks for all the world as if the child is a natural child of those parents (i.e., nowhere does it say “ADOPTED” or “THIS KID STARTED LIFE AS A BASTARD”). It looks like any birth certificate, with the correct date and hospital and only the parents’ names changed.
The Chinese daughter will of course have been born in a hospital in China (or, anyway, in China). I think my friend had to do some kind of paperwork to naturalize her daughter, which just seems wrong. She has four children–one natural, one adopted from another state, one adopted from China and one adopted from Albania (I think). But reading this I get the impression that two of her children would be treated quite differently if they ran for president.
So far as acquiring US citizenship by adoption is concerned, if a US citizen adopts a child - full and final adoption - from another country, and brings the child into the US as a permanent resident before the child turns 18, the child automatically acquires US citizenship. A separate application for naturalisation is not needed.
In other cases - e.g. where the adoptive parent is a US resident alien, but not a citizen, or the adoptive parent is an expatriate US citizen - then an application for naturalisation will be needed.
In either case, however, the child is still a naturalised citizen, not a natural-born citizen, and so cannot become president.
If I remember correctly, didn’t the Supreme Court at one point provide an unofficial comment on how a “natural-born citizen” case would be decided if it ever came up, more or less along the following points?
[ul]
[li]The Constitution requires a President to be a “natural-born citizen” but does not define the term;[/li][li]It is therefore up to Congress to define it;[/li][li]Congress has passed numerous acts concerning citizenship but has never passed legislation explicitly defining the term;[/li][li]Congress therefore implicitly rules on the issue when it accepts the vote of the Electoral College after each election;[/li][li]and, finally, this is a political issue, not a legal one.[/li][/ul]
Thanks to all 31 of you who took time to reply to my original questions and/or to add clarity to another’s reply. The information you have conveyed is quite interesting. I naively thought that the answers to the various questions I posed were, by now, writ in stone. So I appreciate Markxxx’s observation that most of the answers are up to the interpretation of the Supreme Court and even then are subject to re-interpretation.
One small observation: given the term “natural born citizen,” it appears it must be defined by what it is not. Logically that would seem to be any set of conditions that do NOT require “naturalization” for citizenship to be legally accepted. That is, if a person must be naturalized to be a US citizen, he or she cannot have been a natural born citizen. Doesn’t do a lot for semantic clarity, but that appears to be the current state of the law.
