What's the definition of 'natural born' citizen?

You folks are mistaken when you say that both, or either, parents must be citizens in order for a child born on US soil to be a natural born citizen.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

The link below will take you directly to the SCOTUS ruling, called the opinion:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169...

In summary, NEITHER parent has to be a US citizen in order for their child, born on American soil, to be a natural born citizen.

From the above page you will be able to also view separate links to both the Syllabus and the Dissent of the case.

Warning: It's a long and tedious read, not for the timid or those not willing to spend the time to read it in order to fully understand the ruling.

***************************************************************************
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html

In summary, a child born on US soil to non citizen parents is in fact a natural born citizen AND that a minor child does not lose their US citizenship when their parents move themselves and the child to a foreign country.

*********************************************
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/387/253/

SCOTUS ruled that a US citizen's citizenship, even a naturalized citizen, could not be revoked if the citizen held dual citizenship and voted in an election of a foreign country. This decision overruled a previous SCOTUS, Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), ruling that did allow Congress to strip a person of their US citizenship if they had voted in the voted in a foreign election.

There you have it. Like or not, under our system of government, SCOTUS rulings are the supreme law of the land when interpreting the Constitution. Period.

From http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-...

---

On the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein 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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

.