Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum

The definition of "Natural Born Citizen"

Submitted by thedizzle on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 13:08
in
0 votes

I've been looking for a legal definition of "natural born citizen" and I can't find one anywhere... There are lots of opinions on this, but no definition. Anyone have any answers? I'm not looking for opinions.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

n-words

Submitted by AttilasDaughter on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 18:21.

In my opinion it goes like that:

Native born citizen - somebody who has US citizenship through birth on US soil (14th amendment)

Naturalized citizen - an immigrant who gained citizenship through naturalization

Natural born citizen - mentioned in the requirements to be POTUS, but not defined by constitution. Different than the above. Somebody who had through birth (blood and soil) allegiance and citizenship. Not through law, like the two others.

-------------------------------------------------------
"I think it would be a good idea"

Mahatma Gandhi,
when asked what he thought of Western civilization

I'm not even sure about the

Submitted by AttilasDaughter on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 15:17.

2 US citizens as parents, but born abroad definition.
The SCOTUS needs to define that not a bunch of senators before an election (the McCain issue)

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

-------------------------------------------------------
"I think it would be a good idea"

Mahatma Gandhi,
when asked what he thought of Western civilization

8 USC 1401

Submitted by Kelldor on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 14:54.

"A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents (Note the "S", that means plural). A child born abroad to 2 US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior residence in the United States or one of it's outlying possessions." - U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.

copied from http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition...

Then I attempted verification by looking up 8 USC 1401:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

The language is not the same, and section a) says anyone born here that is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If Obama was born in Hawaii, then it looks like it doesn't matter that his Dad was not a US citizen. If I am to interpret this correctly, then Dr. Orly Taitz is wrong. I suspect the law has undergone some changes though. The way it is written it sounds like any anchor-baby is even considered natural born, and the language reads differently than what was in the 1st quote above.

Unless some bombshell drops, this fight is a lost cause and we need to do a better job of picking our battles. As for me, I still think he should show his long form to put this to rest. Instead, they pass an act through Congress to try to do that. It has the appearance of impropriety.

Idiot

Submitted by Schvenzlerman on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 19:19.

You have done no substantive research. You have to go back to the beginning. It's all about original intent.

I agree

Submitted by thedizzle on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 16:50.

With the statements made in your last paragraph.

Is there a difference?

Submitted by lookyhere on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 15:25.

Kelldor – is there a difference between being a (National and a Citizen of the USA) and a Natural Born Citizen or are they the same? Being a Natural Born Citizen is a qualifying factor in order to become POTUS.

There's a difference

Submitted by Njon on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 15:37.

There's definitely a difference. An immigrant can get citizenship, but they do not meet the Constitutional qualifications to be president. A natural born citizen means that you were a U.S. citizen from the moment of birth, on U.S. soil, with both parents being citizens.

Note: the parents themselves don't have to be natural born citizens in order for their child to be one; they simply have to be citizens. For example, let's say a couple immigrates here from China and they both become naturalized citizens. Then they have a child born on U.S. soil. Their child is a natural born citizen, even though the parents are naturalized citizens.

Or let's say a couple immigrates here but when their child is born either one or both of them are not naturalized citizens; their child then does not qualify as a natural born citizen because at least one parent is not a citizen. This is especially pertinent with reference to the father; see http://www.dailypaul.com/node/101105#comment-1109326

Whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya or somewhere else doesn't really matter; his father was not a U.S. citizen.

Natural born citizenship is exactly the same as any other U.S. citizenship except on this one issue: only a natural born citizen can be president.

So there does seem to be a difference

Submitted by lookyhere on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 16:42.

Maybe, there is still a case to be made on the Obama birth issue - does anyone have any standing to make it in a court of law.

Standing

Submitted by Njon on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 16:59.

By virtue of one's status as a U.S. citizen, protected by the Constitution and subject to federal jurisdiction, any citizen has the standing to enforce the Constitution in court. However, because the judiciary has become so twisted, they don't seem to see it that way.

A key case to watch right now is Kerchner et al v. Obama. See the blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ for details.

the bomb

Submitted by lookyhere on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 17:44.

If the judge denies the motion to dismiss and allows Apuzzo to state his case against Obama that could very well be the bomb that Kelldor is talking about. Motion to dismiss decision date is about Aug 3rd. I doubt it will go off though.

Congress

Submitted by Njon on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 15:09.

Congress has no authority to enact a statute defining a natural born citizen; that is a violation of the Constitution's supremacy clause. The only valid definition is what the phrase meant to the populace at the time of ratification.

Yeah...

Submitted by thedizzle on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 14:51.

I watched it but it's still opinion.

Still no definition...

Submitted by thedizzle on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 14:23.

Only opinions. I tend to lean towards the "birther" side of things, but this "natural born" thing seems pretty gray to me... Which means that this effort is probably pointless when it comes down to it.

Vattel

Submitted by Njon on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 14:52.

What Vattel said IS almost certainly the intended definition. If the founders meant by "natural born citizen" something peculiar and incomprehensible to the common citizen of that time, they likely would have specifically defined it. Vattel had great influence in the early United States; see: "Emmerich de Vattel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed July 6, 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/624086/Emmerich-de...

The first Supreme Court citation I offered at http://www.dailypaul.com/node/101105#comment-1109326 comes from 1814, which wasn't all that long after the ratification of the Constitution. And as Leo Donofrio, Esq. points out at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/hawaii-he... the second case was decided AFTER the ratification of the 14th amendment, meaning that the Supreme Court held that the 14th amendment did not define a natural born citizen, and instead pointed us to external sources from the founders' era (of which Vattel would qualify, his work being such an authority) to discern the meaning of the natural born citizen clause. The court also expressed doubt as to the natural born citizenship of those WITHOUT citizen parents (and Obama's father was not a citizen).

Vattel's definition

Submitted by Njon on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 13:53.

Vattel stated, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." And he said, “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen ; for, if be (sic) is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

From: Monsieur de Vattel. The Law of Nations. New edition by Joseph Chitty with notes and additions by Edward D. Ingraham. Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson & Co., Law Booksellers, 1867. 101. Accessed June 26 and/or 27, 2009. http://books.google.com/books?id=0B0MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP7

The Supreme Court quoted Vattel as saying, "The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

From: The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 289 (1814). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

The Supreme Court stated, "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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

From: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 167-168 (1874). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

Read the highlighted area

Submitted by cactus1010 on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 13:35.

Read the highlighted area this may help explain "natural born citizen."

http://www.cusc.org/letters/8734.htm

November 15, 2008

Dear CUSC Editor,

PLEASE HEAR ME OUT. If you have an open mind, PLEASE at least read the next five paragraphs.

According to factcheck, quote, "When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.

Factcheck continues: "That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children.

Factcheck continues: "Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982." End quote.

Thus, this is a direct admission that Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".

A lawsuit was filed in New Jersey by Leo Donofrio which states that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth," and therefore split loyalties "at birth," he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States of America. A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States of America!

The Framers of the Unites States Constitution carefully chose the words "natural born" and those words CANNOT BE IGNORED.

The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, "natural born citizen", pertains to the status of the person's citizenship "at birth".

Born in Hawaii? . . . DOES NOT MATTER! Because Obama was, "at birth", a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad.

Either way, he is not eligible to be President.

Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen "at birth".

Senator Obama has admitted to being a British subject "at birth". And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States of America.

The 14th Amendment of the Unites States Constitution does NOT confer "natural born citizen" status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a "Citizen", and only if he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:
"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."

The most overlooked words in that section are: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers of our Constitution makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves - persons born subject to British jurisdiction - and "natural born citizens" who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen... at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.

Obama was definitely not a natural born Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States "at birth". It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject, or any other nationality "at birth".

If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President. Pretty clear, isn't it?

If you click through to Factcheck.org, a more detailed discussion as to why Obama was a British citizen at birth explains the relevant statutes: Quote, "When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.' " End quote from factcheck.

And I am still not convinced that Senator Obama was born in Hawaii.

The factcheck article goes on to state that Obama's British citizenship was transferred to Kenya as Kenya became independent from the UK and that Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 years old. But none of that is relevant since the Constitution requires that every President be a "natural born citizen". The word "born" is proof positive that the status must be present "at birth". If this were not the case, then, as stated above, the Framers would not have needed to put in a grandfather clause.

Please look at Leo Donofrio's web log (blog). [EDITOR's note: click here]

The United States of America and her Constitution will not survive if the basic FOUNDATION of our law, the U.S. Constitution, is destroyed by a usurper and his cult of followers.

Best Regards,

(Name on File)
California

Perfect

Submitted by Schvenzlerman on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 19:25.

Set forth very well and thank you.

My front fell off and I need to be towed out of the enviorment.

Submitted by HYDROMAN on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 13:47.

I fell off of my barstool and need a tow.

"We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt"
Joseph Biden VP , USA

—

"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs