# Why does the President have to be "a natural born Citizen"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 6, 2002, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713 "2002-06-06T19:04:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JonTheHasher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7bcc69/32.png) [@JonTheHasher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonTheHasher)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/1 "2002-06-06T19:04:52Z")
The background to this question is pretty boring, but it involves Arnold Schwarzenegger’s claim that he’s never been unable to do something that he set his mind to, and observations that “furriners” who’ve come to the US and made good are often some of the most patriotic, pro-US people I’ve met. Does anyone have an insight into why the framers of the Constitution would have thought that allowing a naturalized citizen to become president would be a bad idea? It’s not like a secret British Royalist could’ve snuck his way into the office and declared that the US was back under British rule - our founding fathers ensured that the Prez doesn’t have power like that. Any help from the history buffs out there would be appreciated. Jon ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/2 "2002-06-06T19:51:39Z")
I’m not a history buff. I just came in because I wanted to say “Because the Constitution says so!” And here I find that you’re already prepared for this. ☹ So, I’ll just offer some WAG speculation: perhaps the FF weren’t anticipating immigration and naturalization to become as widespread as they eventually did become. Perhaps they feared that someone would immigrate with a large store of personally-held wealth, spend a lot of it on becoming naturalized, and use more of it to buy scads of political power. The POTUS doesn’t write legislation, certainly, but he IS the head of state (signing treaties), and he IS required by the Constitution to propose a national to-do list to Congress each year. To be sure, the Congress didn’t turn out to be just a rubber stamp for the president’s wishes, but at the time of the Constitution’s writing, the FF’s could hardly be expected to know that, could they? ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/3 "2002-06-06T20:14:03Z")
I wonder what the founding Fathers would have said concerning the qualification of: –Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies. –Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona three years before statehood. –George Romney, born in Mexico in 1907 to parents who were American citizens. –Daniel Inouye, born in Hawaii long before statehood (1959). He was a World War II hero–and even lost an arm in combat. –Any other American citizen born in Alask or Hawaii–or a current territory, for that matter. Also, John Quincy Adams married a London-born American woman; and he was on diplomatic missions in Europe much of his life. Suppose he had a child born in Europe at that time, who might have been a candidate for President? I wonder whether it might have been better for the FFs to give a clearer description of “natural born citizern.” ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/4 "2002-06-06T20:28:16Z")
Children who are born to American citizens are American citizens by right of blood. There are two ways to be a natural-born American citizen. One is by being born on American soil. The other is by being born to American citizens. Also, I could be wrong about this, but I think that when territories become states, the citizens of those former territories become American citizens retroactively, and so they would be qualified for the Presidency. My WAG about the reason for the law is that the founders didn’t want a situation in the US that was common in Europe, which is that a foreign person who may or may not even speak the language of the country would be brought in as the ruler, simply because he/she was the closest in the line of succession. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/5 "2002-06-06T20:43:00Z")
People born in American territories are natural born US citizens. That includes Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, and non-state mainland territories. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/6 "2002-06-06T20:44:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dougie\_monty \* > \*\*I wonder what the founding Fathers would have said concerning the qualification of: > –Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies. \*\* Hamilton was eligible because he was a citizen of the U.S. when the constition was adopted. [Article II, Section I](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1) of the constition states (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. > [@](#): > > \*\* > –Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona three years before statehood. > –George Romney, born in Mexico in 1907 to parents who were American citizens. > –Daniel Inouye, born in Hawaii long before statehood (1959). He was a World War II hero–and even lost an arm in combat. > –Any other American citizen born in Alask or Hawaii–or a current territory, for that matter. \*\* People born in U.S territories are U.S. citizens. So, Goldwater, Romney, Inouye, etc. are all eligible for the Presidency (provided, of course, that they were born citizens and meet the other requirements). Besides, I don’t remember Inouye ever running for president. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also, John Quincy Adams married a London-born American woman; and he was on diplomatic missions in Europe much of his life. Suppose he had a child born in Europe at that time, who might have been a candidate for President? I wonder whether it might have been better for the FFs to give a clearer description of “natural born citizern.” \*\* Citizenship is determined by law. Someone recently posted the relevant sections of the U.S. Code. But, suffice it to say, children of U.S. citizens born abroad are U.S. citizens themselves. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/7 "2002-06-06T20:52:05Z")
People born in American territories are natural born US citizens. That includes Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, and non-state mainland territories. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/8 "2002-06-06T21:20:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MsWhatsit \* > \*\* > > My WAG about the reason for the law is that the founders didn’t want a situation in the US that was common in Europe, which is that a foreign person who may or may not even speak the language of the country would be brought in as the ruler, simply because he/she was the closest in the line of succession. \*\* I think they dealt with that pretty effectively by ruling out any hereditary factor in the line of succession. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/9 "2002-06-06T21:31:51Z")
I thiink they’d say “those people are all very obviously citizens, as are all people born of American parents, or born in U.S. territories, or who were residents of the U.S. at the time of the Constitution’s adoption.” ---
**Author:** ![JonTheHasher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7bcc69/32.png) [@JonTheHasher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonTheHasher)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/10 "2002-06-06T21:44:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nametag \* > \*\*I thiink they’d say “those people are all very obviously citizens, as are all people born of American parents, or born in U.S. territories, or who were residents of the U.S. at the time of the Constitution’s adoption.” \*\* That’s about the best thing I’ve come up with - that, since they didn’t necessarily have any real sort of naturalization or anything, they had to draw the line somewhere. It just seems sort of arbitrary. As far as all the other stuff, they pretty much followed long-standing British law when they decided that children born overseas to citizens were, themselves, citizens. To the best of my knowledge, though, that’s a matter of national law rather than the Constitution. Am I correct there? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/11 "2002-06-06T23:10:02Z")
As for the question posed in the thread title, the answer is, “because the Constitution says so.” I cannot see any reason why, in today’s world, it needs to be the case (presuming that we retain the 14-year residency requirement – I’d hate to see a situation where a foreign celebrity moves here and is immediately “pushed” for President the way Sen. Edwards is being pushed now). It might be an idea to submit this concept to the Senate Judiciary Committee for inclusion in an amendment in much the way the 20th and 25th Amendments covered several related topics. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/12 "2002-06-07T00:10:28Z")
It’s to prevent Kang and Kodos from becoming president! [Could a member of an extraterrestrial species be U.S. president?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020308.html) ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/13 "2002-06-07T01:19:01Z")
I am posting this without reading the original language so bear with me. I just had a thought which I need to post, and if I take too long researching it, at my age, I may forget what the hell I meant by the time I find the answer. Did anyone ever consider that the wording of “natural born citizen” could be interpreted as meaning that “natural birth” is vaginal? Perhaps the framers thought that Caesarian birth was “unnatural” and you had to be born the way most people were.? While I am being a bit facetious, I truly wonder what would happen if such a challenge were made in court? This is a serious question. Where is my reasoning incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/14 "2002-06-07T02:03:13Z")
> [@](#): > > All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ‘‘a natural born citizen’’ in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. Whatever the term ‘‘natural born’’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘‘naturalized.’’ Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ‘’[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States’’ are citizens. Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .’’ This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. Source: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/03.html#1](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/03.html#1) > [@](#): > > Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday? > > The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. > > Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:” > > - Anyone born inside the United States > > - Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe > > - Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. > > - Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national > > - Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year > > - Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 > > - Any one born outside the United States, if one is an alien and as long as one is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) > > - A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. > > Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example. > > Many parts of the world have law to provide them with special status, to allow children born in those places to be considered natural-born. This allows families with a long history of working in these areas without ever returning to the U.S. to be considered natural-born. For example, the Panama Canal Zone had been in U.S. possession for a full century, and some families lived there for generations. 8 USC 1403 handles the Zone specifically, stating that anyone born in the Zone on or after 2/26/1904, to at least one citizen-parent, is a natural-born citizen. Similar law is in place to handle the acquisition of territories, such as Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii. Source: [http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop\_citi.html](http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html) I suppose one could research Madison’s Notes of the Convention, or Farrand’s compilation, ust to see if the Framers actually debated the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/15 "2002-06-07T05:44:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duckster \* > \*\*I suppose one could research Madison’s Notes of the Convention, or Farrand’s compilation, ust to see if the Framers actually debated the issue. \*\* Farrand does mention this issue in _The Framing of the Constitution of the United States_. The Convention first seems to have debated the citizenship requirement in relationship to the two houses of Congress, and then the same reasoning was applied to the President, although with even stronger effect. At pp. 137-138 of my facsimile edition, Farrand writes: > [@](#): > > The requirement of three years’ citizenship for members of the house and of four years for the senate was regarded as insufficient in keeping foreigners out of the legislature. The time was accordingly lengthened to seven years for the lower house, and a proposal was made to increase it for the upper house to fourteen years. The question was a delicate one as several members of the convention were themselves of foreign birth. One of these, Butler, argued in favour of the restriction, frankly admitting that until he had lived in this country for some time he was not fitted to serve in public office. Wilson, on the other hand, spoke strongly against it. When he lived in Maryland, he had felt keenly his being barred from public office on that score, and besides it seemed anomalous to permit a man to share in the framing of a new constitution and then prevent him from holding office under it. Nine years’ citizenship was finally agreed to as a suitable requirment for members of the upper house, although an unsuccessful effort was made by Wilson to have both this and the requirement for the lower house reduced in length. At p. 165, Farrand then notes that the President was to be a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There is a significant difference between the congressional requirements and the presidential requirement: you don’t have to be a natural born citizen to be elected to Congress, just have been a citizen for a certain number of years. Presumably, the drafters decided that the rationale for a citizenship requirement for Congress applied with even greater force for the President. ---
**Author:** ![nicky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f0a364/32.png) [@nicky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nicky)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/16 "2002-06-07T10:05:34Z")
If it bars that sausage-fingered Austrian twat from the presidency, then i’m in favor of it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/17 "2002-06-07T13:10:42Z")
I’m not sure to whom nicky is referring, but the justification for the original clause was likely to prevent a situation comparable to the 18th-century British monarchy, in which the various King Georges were not actually British, but German in descent. George III in particular (1760-1820), afflicted by mental illness, provided a stellar justification not to let your head of state be a foreign devil. ---
**Author:** ![JonTheHasher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7bcc69/32.png) [@JonTheHasher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonTheHasher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/18 "2002-06-07T13:56:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > **I’m not sure to whom nicky is referring…** Hey Bryan, Buried in the boring background of the OP is a note that Arnold Schwarzenegger makes the claim that he’s never been unable to do something that he was determined to do. This claim set off a conversation between my wife and I that some of the best US citizens we’ve met are people who have immigrated to the US as adults, and have “made it” here. Blah, blah, blah…so why did the Founding Fathers decide to exclude them? Thanks for all the insight, folks (‘specially **Northern Piper** and **Zev Steinhardt** )! I knew I could depend on ya’! ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/19 "2002-06-07T14:10:03Z")
Well, just how many potential Presidential candidates has the “natural born citizen” requirement deprived us of? In recent memory, I can think of only two people, both former Secretaries of State: Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright were both born in Europe. Now, I don’t think either would stand a strong chance of winning his/her party’s nomination, let alone winning the Presidency, so the point is pretty much moot. In theory, at least, it wouldn’t bother me a whit if an otherwise well-qualified U.S. citizen of foreign bith wanted to run for President (I certainly don’t see how Madeleine Albright’s birth in Czechoslovakia would make her allegiance to the U.S. suspect). But since the rule affects so few people, there’s never been a great impetus to change the rule. And until such time as an EXTREMELY attractive potential candidate is disqualified for his/her place of birth, I don’t expect there’ll ever be enough public outcry to change the rule. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713/20 "2002-06-07T15:06:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*…the justification for the original clause was likely to prevent a situation comparable to the 18th-century British monarchy, in which the various King Georges were not actually British, but German in descent. George III in particular (1760-1820), afflicted by mental illness, provided a stellar justification not to let your head of state be a foreign devil. \*\* It was George III himself who accurately said of his own national identity, ‘Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Briton’. No, the issue was a bit more complicated than that. Lurking behind the clause is the requirement laid down in the English Act of Settlement of 1700 that, > [@](#): > > **no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him…** Although it had been the Dutch courtiers of William III which had been foremost in MPs’ mind when they passed this in 1700, the concern they were expressing was a far older one. Over the centuries numerous European monarchs had employed foreign-born favourites - Mazarin is only the most obvious example - and few complaints had been more common than claims that such advisers were, in reality, foreign agents. What is so surprising about the restriction in the U.S. constitution is not that it was included but that it only applied to the presidency. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-president-have-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/112713.md?page=2)