# Would you support an amendment to remove the Natural Born Citizen clause? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 9, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785 "2011-04-09T17:10:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/41 "2011-04-10T17:20:35Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Leave it. Are we running out of natural born citizens, and struggling to find people who want to be president? Running out? This is more about giving American citizens(over the age of 35) the right to run for President, something not all citizens can currently do. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/42 "2011-04-10T18:17:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because it’s America. The President should be American. > [@Mahaloth](#): > > My Mother has been a citizen of the United States for 41 years, but was born in England. She can’t run for President. > > Is she not American? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > On second thought, I don’t want to get into this. I have to admit, I lol’d. ---
**Author:** ![inkling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f17d59/32.png) [@inkling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inkling)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/43 "2011-04-10T22:31:31Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > No, it should not be changed (other than possibly clarifying what “natural born” means). This can’t really be clarified until someone who wants to become president but has some question raised about their eligibility [_legitimate_ question, I should say, as the ‘Obama isn’t eligible\*’ meme has been pretty well debunked], and a legal challenge is decided in court. Are you a ‘natural-born’ citizen of the US if you were born in the Canal Zone to American citizens, as was John McCain? I have a friend who is a US citizen and has no other citizenship. His wife is a Chinese citizen. Is their son, who was born in Tokyo, a ‘natural-born’ US citizen? How about the child of illegal immigrants, born yards inside the border? ## We all think we know what ‘natural-born’ means, but the founding fathers did not explain what they meant by the phrase, so we will have to wait for one or more court decisions to know who is and who is not eligible to run for President. - It will be interesting to see if the ‘birthers’ attempt to use the Obama presidency and their ginned-up ‘proof’ that he is not a citizen as precedent in a case when/if they want to field a candidate who was born elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/44 "2011-04-10T22:47:34Z")
> [@inkling](#): > > Are you a ‘natural-born’ citizen of the US if you were born in the Canal Zone to American citizens, as was John McCain? I have a friend who is a US citizen and has no other citizenship. His wife is a Chinese citizen. Is their son, who was born in Tokyo, a ‘natural-born’ US citizen? How about the child of illegal immigrants, born yards inside the border? > > We all think we know what ‘natural-born’ means, but the founding fathers did not explain what they meant by the phrase, so we will have to wait for one or more court decisions to know who is and who is not eligible to run for President. [From this site, we get the following definition, which seems to answer some of your questions.](http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen) > [@](#): > > The Conclusive Definition Of “Natural-Born Citizen” > > Natural-born citizens of the United States are those who are citizens of the United States from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their American citizenship. These are those whose parents are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth. > > Natural-born American citizens are those born of American citizen parents, within or without the American Republic, provided in the latter case that one of the parents had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. > Their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and not artificial > or acquired by compliance with legislative provisions. > > A natural-born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority, in fact, the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. > > A natural-born citizen is defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country. > > It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be “a natural born citizen.” It is only requisite he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country. > Natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens and naturalized citizens, are > those born in the United States of parents who are citizens. > > Natural-born citizens are also those born outside 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 the child. > > Hence, a child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401. I think natural born should include children adopted under a certain age, even if from another country. ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/45 "2011-04-10T23:10:27Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > [From this site, we get the following definition, which seems to answer some of your questions.](http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen) I’ve said it in a half-dozen other threads, and I’ll say it again. Nobody knows definition of “natural-born citizen” in the context of presidential eligibility. [First big argument about it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=538153) [Next small argument about it.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=551276) Your cite does not define “natural-born citizen” but rather defines “person who was born a citizen.” An important difference from a constitutional perspective. The only way we’ll get an actual definition of the constitutional term is if a case goes before the SCOTUS, and they make a ruling that includes a definition. No such case has yet gotten that high. On a side note, it is possible – likely even – that the constitutional definition will match the one given in your cite. But we don’t yet know that. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/46 "2011-04-11T12:07:16Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > People who are born US citizens naturally have a vested interest in the US. Do you have any evidence for this? Because I would think that people who suffer hardships to get to the US, and then jump through a lot of hoops to become citizens, have shown a much bigger interests than white US-born guys who feel entitled to the world just because they were born Americans, without ever doing anything positive for the country, just bitching around while listening to talk radio. > [@](#): > > If you allow immigrants to run, you allow for the possibility of foreign “plants”, backed by foreign money, running for president. We’ve already seen how lots of money immediately gets a person a plausibility as president (or other office). We don’t need that possibility. And that’s different from domestic plants backed by domestic money running and being elected president, who then make politics only for their backers, but not for the rest of the country, how exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/47 "2011-04-11T12:26:53Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > I think the most confusing aspect of this is the term _natural_-born. As opposed to unnaturally-born? What would that mean? Why didn’t they just say ‘citizen born in the USA’? Because not every person who’s been a citizen of the USA from birth was born in the USA? It’s one of those things where the phrasing is essential. By the way, becoming naturalized already has a “several years’ residence” requirement, so I think one would be relevant only if it’s longer than the amount required to become naturalized or phrased as “must have been naturalized for X years” and consist of “resident for tax purposes” - unless someone thinks that naturalized personnel who have spent time working abroad (which may even be for the US Armed Forces or as diplomatic personnel) should not be eligible. I’d ask these people whether they would change the Constitution to add a residency requirement for natural-born citizens, under the same logic. Didn’t vote on the poll as I am not a US citizen or national. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/48 "2011-04-11T12:32:04Z")
It should remain, but there needs to be a clear statement of what “natural born” means. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/49 "2011-04-11T14:01:23Z")
It’s akin to having a prerequisite that unless one’s first paying job was at IBM, he/she is not eligible to be elected/appointed CEO of IBM. Stupid, xenophobic requirement. Get rid of it. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/50 "2011-04-11T14:16:06Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Amending the Constitution should not be done without a compelling reason. No such compelling reason has been offered here. \*\*Oakminster \*\*said it better than I would’ve, so I’ll just quote it here. Sure, I think that naturalized citizens should have just as much right to run for president as I (born in Colorado) do, but I don’t think that their disqualification has or is currently causing such hardship that we need to change those rules. Amending the Constitution is something that should be backed by stronger reasoning than “hey, you know that isn’t quite fair.” ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/51 "2011-04-11T14:17:11Z")
I don’t want it removed. I want it clarified. It’s pretty widely accepted that “natural born citizen” means “born in the USA”, but I’d like to see some clear language on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/52 "2011-04-11T14:19:47Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Amending the Constitution should not be done without a compelling reason. No such compelling reason has been offered here. I have a compelling reason. The current rule creates two classes of citizens, one class that is eligible for the presidency and one that isn’t. It’s offensive to the ideals of democracy and egalitarianism. There should not be classes of citizens. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/53 "2011-04-11T14:35:20Z")
> [@Snickers](#): > > Amending the Constitution is something that should be backed by stronger reasoning than “hey, you know that isn’t quite fair.” I think the Constitution is the one document where if it ain’t fair, it’s a travesty. Building unfairness into the bones of the system is a disgrace. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/54 "2011-04-11T16:35:57Z")
I don’t see a compelling reason to remove it. It’s not as though we have a shortage of candidates. And I say that as an immigrant. [QUOTE=ascenray] I have a compelling reason. The current rule creates two classes of citizens, one class that is eligible for the presidency and one that isn’t. It’s offensive to the ideals of democracy and egalitarianism. There should not be classes of citizens. [/QUOTE] Natural born citizens are already _de facto_ segregated into those who could become president and those who couldn’t. ETA: I do agree with **appleciders** , though. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/55 "2011-04-11T16:51:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t see a compelling reason to remove it. It’s not as though we have a shortage of candidates. And I say that as an immigrant. > > Natural born citizens are already _de facto_ segregated into those who could become president and those who couldn’t. Do you see no difference between a constitutionally sanctioned classification of two types of citizens based on birth and some kind of “de facto segregation” (whatever that might be)? This country is a nation of immigrants. Naturalized citizens should be in exactly the same constitutional position as natural born citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/56 "2011-04-11T16:55:10Z")
Constitutionally sanctioned classification only matters when it matters. The presidential/ vice-presidential qualifications _do not matter_, for all intents and purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/57 "2011-04-11T16:59:37Z")
They very well might matter to someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger. If he wants to be a candidate for president, it’s an injustice if he is prevented from being one by the natural born requirement. That kind of injustice actually does matter. It’s an injustice that the question even comes up for people like Barack Obama and John McCain. The question of their locations of birth shouldn’t even create a hypothetical constitutional question. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/58 "2011-04-11T17:16:49Z")
Schwarzenegger is not a candidate, and questions of their locations of birth didn’t create even hypothetical constitutional questions. Have you seen how complex and ridiculous the Birther theories are? If it wasn’t this, it would have been something equally silly. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/59 "2011-04-11T17:21:08Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I think the Constitution is the one document where if it ain’t fair, it’s a travesty. Building unfairness into the bones of the system is a disgrace. The rule _exists_ to promote fairness. A naturalized citizen will typically have a much better understanding of our system of government than a native, which gives them an unfair advantage come election time. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785/60 "2011-04-11T17:28:57Z")
This is a ludicrous argument. How do you know that he wouldn’t bs a candidate but for the disqualification? The constitution takes away that option. And it’s disingenuous to argue that it doesn’t matter because Schwarzenegger hasn’t declared his own candidacy. The rule prevents a priori ant person in that position from being a qualified candidate. If the rule said that only whites or only Christians were qualified, would you call itmerely theoretical because at the moment there wasn’t a viable non-white ornon-Christian candidate? The rule is unacceptably discriminatory on its face, regardless of who is or isn’t currently a candidate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-support-an-amendment-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-clause/577785.md?page=4)