-13 votes

No one in the U.S. can become President. No one is a "natural" citizen.

Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Citizenship and countries are constructs of mankind, not nature, therefore no one is a "natural" citizen.

In a different sense, natural is something you are born with. Some are natural athletes, born with that gift. Some are born naturally white, black, asian, as it is how they are born. Anyone receiving U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born, is a natural citizen. They didn't need to apply for it, they were born that way.

I have seen another thread where people go on about how the President has to be born on this or that piece of soil. That both parents have to be U.S. citizens, or that another country can not "claim you" as theirs. This is silly nonsense. If you are born on foreign soil to only one American parent, and also hold dual citizenship through the foreign parent, you are a natural American by birth. You do not need to obtain it, you are by law born with it. This is the case of my son.

The supreme court has not ruled on the definition of "Natural Citizen" specifically, so this is really just opinion in the legal sense, other than by law my son was a citizen thanks to my American made sperm.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

One Hell of an Ideal > No President...

If we keep voting for a Master, we will always be slaves.

Natural Order

You can spout on all you want - but that doesn't make it true.

I noticed you give only your opinion - backed by absolutely nothing.

Thus, your post is no better than a Facebook rant.

Perhaps you should spend more time there - your postings might be better received.

Do you consider families natural or man-made constructs?

Are friendships formed naturally or are they man-made constructs?
Do we gravitate toward like minded people naturally or because of some kind of man-made construct?
Do we partner naturally or because of some kind of man-made construct?When indivuals gather and form a community because they feel the same and want to work toward the same goals, do they do so naturally?
Wouldn't there be a natural desire to preserve and sustain their community?
Wouldn't it follow that children born to members of that community are also members of that community?
Do you see where I'm going with this?

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I think friendships are man

I think friendships are man made, as it takes effort to make them work, and a conscious choice. I think the desire to have friends is a natural one.

We partner up because partnering up is to the mutual benefit of survival of ourselves, or to the survival of our genetics through children.

People can come together in a community of mutual cooperation through choice, or they can have it thrust upon them. Our country already existed through the creation of others, prior to my birth. People see mutual benefit through cooperation, but then assholes come along and find ways to exploit the production of others. As a member of a "country" (imaginary lines), I don't know everyone in my community, and some of them I do know, I don't like. So far the pros outweigh the cons, so I haven't moved out in the middle of the woods yet.

LOL Great syllogism ! :)

should have just left it at the first line. That is a fabulous joke.

Q: Whats the opposite of a natural birth?
A: A man-made birth.

Q: And has every human citizen had a man-made birth?
A: Of course every citizen has a man-made birth

Conclusion: There are no Natural Born Citizens.

"Truth is subject to perspective"

you sound like my sister.... and in her famous words.

"if it exists in nature, it is natural" synthetic is a dumb word that only morons use.

think for a minute man! is the concept of citizenship natural?
this is clearly an application of the political concept of "Natural Law"

what else should "Law" be based on?

You were in the military ...

... right?

Yep, I was a brainwashed

Yep, I was a brainwashed Airman that fueled fighter jets to drop bombs on Iraq because it was the patriotic thing to do when I was 21. Saddam was a threat with WMDs, or so I was led to believe. Asking questions about whether or not I did the right thing has opened my eyes to the psychological control matrix we all live in.

Question for


If both Rubio's Mexican parents became naturalized citizens and gave birth to Rubio in the U.S. would that make him eligible?

Rubio is NOT eligible

Marco Rubio's parents were Cuban, not Mexican. They both became naturalized US citizens when Marco was five years old, obviously AFTER he was born, so he is NOT a "natural born citizen" (NBC) and is therefore NOT eligible to be President, per Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution. He is also NOT eligible to be Vice President, since the 12th Amendment requires that VPs meet the same eligibility requirements as Presidents. Had both he parents became naturalized citizens BEFORE his was born, he would have been a NBC and eligible to be President or VP, since he was born on US soil.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

So what

is it that confers citizenship to Rubio? His parents naturalization? Or his place of birth?

His place of birth ...

... due to the 14th Amendment.

If he had been born in 1850 to Cuban parents, he would not have been a US citizen. After the 14th Amendment, anyone born on US soil is a US citizen.

However, he is still not a natural-born citizen due to the status of his parents.

Natural born citizenship requires BOTH

"Natural born citizenship" requires BOTH birth on US soil AND US citizenship of BOTH parents. But your question asks about Rubio's "citizenship", which nobody is questioning, rather than whether or not he is a "natural born citizen", which is ONLY required for 2 offices in this nation: President and Vice President.
Congressman and Senators need NOT be "natural born citizens", just "citizens". Incidentally, your parents need not be "natural born citizens" at the time of your birth, just "citizens", eg. naturalized before your birth, for your to be born a "natural born citizen", provided you are born on US soil.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Let me be

more specific. Are you saying Rubio becomes a NBC because his parents became naturalized (if done before birth)?

NBC and Rubio clarified

Rubio would be a NBC if:
1) He was born on US soil (which I believe he was); and
2) Both his parents became naturalized before his birth (which I believe did NOT happen, since they both became naturalized US citizens when Marco was 5 years old, obviously AFTER his birth.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

So you're

saying the act of parents becoming naturalized, which is a legal not natural act, is what would make Rubio a natural born citizen?

If that's the case what does the "natural" in natural born citizen refer to?

No ...

... see my post above.

But in short: "natural" means at common law, which is to say that the person must be born on US soil AND have both parents be citizens AT THE TIME OF BIRTH.

Natural-born citizen = Born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

Citizen at birth by 14th Amendment = Born on US soil, where at least one parent is not a citizen.

Citizen at birth by act of Congress (naturalization) = Born outside US soil, but falling under a category or class of persons that Congress has granted US citizenship (such as child of US serviceman).

Naturalized citizen (also naturalization) = Born outside US soil, and applying to become a citizen when they are an adult.

Only the first category (natural-born citizen) is eligible to be president. All categories can hold any other office, including Vice President (but such a person must be natural-born citizen if he is to succeed to President).


Natural Born Citizen - born in one of the States to 2 citizen parents.

Citizen at Birth by 14th Amendment - born on U.S. soil, AND subject (completely) to the jurisdiction of Congress, parentage being irrelevant.

LOL ...

... yes, of course I agree.

But the whole topic of the 14th Amendment, how it was unlawfully passed, what it really meant (federal citizenship for freed slaves, who did not have citizenship status recognized due to the Dred Scott cases), and how it is interpreted today to mean anything any court wants ...

... is a whole other can of worms!



Whadda Dumb Post.


Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

History answers the question

not true

I was just reading here earlier about how my big 'Murrican sperm makes me a murrican

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

The founding fathers wrote at length about this.

"Natural" in this sense means "according to NATURAL LAW".

The founders wrote extensively on it.

If you bother to READ the constitution, the founders EXEMPTED THEMSELVES from this constitutional requirement.


Because they were not natural citizens. They knew it. Because it's based in NATURAL LAW.

What is natural law? Something that is imposed by NATURE, not by man made law.

In natural law ones country is the country of the fathers place of birth.

They did not exempt themselves ...

... so maybe you should take your own advice and READ THE CONSTITUTION.

The only "exemption" was the office of president, no other office.

And that was because they wanted the president to be someone who was around BEFORE (and during) the revolution.

The United States (i.e. these "united States") was formed in 1776. In 1787, the representatives and senators had to be CITIZENS for 7 and 9 years. The president had to be a RESIDENT for 14 years, even though the US had not existed for 14 years. Obviously, they could not make a requirement of CITIZEN for 14 years.

The only exception made was that the president had to be a natural-born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution since nobody was a natural-born citizen in 1787.

What office are we talking about here? PRESIDENT

So what are you arguing with me about?

What you posted is EXACTLY what I was saying and SUPPORTS what I replied above.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

My bad ...

... I was thinking of someone else when I wrote that.

What's a "Natural Citizen"

Where in the US Constitution is your term "natural citizen" found? How about your term "natural American by birth"? Are they in the same article that discusses "American made sperm?" Do you have any legal training? Have you read the US Constitution? Do you have a copy handy? I guess our founding fathers were too stupid or illiterate to figure out how to define eligibility for the Presidency. Apparently we had to wait 226 years to await your brilliant insight that ... (drumroll)... "No one in the U.S. can become President!"

"The supreme court has not ruled on the definition of 'Natural Citizen'" because no such term exits. The term in question is "Natural born citizen" and is found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution. Language precision is important in the law. Despite your claim to the contrary, the Supreme Court has very definitely ruled on the definition of "Natural born citizen" ("NBC") in several cases, including its 1875 decision in "Minor v. Happersett" in which it cited several of its earlier case decisions and noted 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 is clear from the Court's language, NBC requires two factors: 1) that the child be "born in a country" AND 2) "of parents who were its citizens".

So much for your assertions that "...people go on about how the President has to be born on this or that piece of soil. That both parents have to be U.S. citizens, or that another country can not "claim you" as theirs. This is silly nonsense". Rather than "silly nonsense", it is the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should refrain from commenting on matters that you know nothing about!

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

The problem

with you citing Minor v. Happersett which dealt with women's voting rights, not citizenship, is they didn't rule what NBC wasn't. They only affirmed one example of what it was.

It's you that is adding in the exclusions. If that quote didn't end where your text starts, but rather included it then I would agree with you.

Actually, Minor vs. Happersett ...

... is primarily about citizenship and whether or not a state can restrict rights of a citizen, and whether or not Missouri did.

Virginia Minor was a natural-born citizen, who was also a woman. She wanted to vote in Missouri, which had a law that only men could vote (a great idea, btw! ;-)

The registrar (Happersett) denied her registration and she sued.

The US Supreme Court identified her as a natural-born citizen because she was born in the US to US citizen parents. They said there were other forms of "citizen" but they did not need to address those other forms since Minor was born in the US to US citizen parents.

They went on to say that voting was not a right, but a privilege and a state could determine who could and who could not vote. It was OK for Missouri to deny women the vote because voting was not a right held by all citizens.

Of course since then, women have the right by way of amendment to the Constitution. This case was decided in 1872, before the 19th Amendment.

But the case ABSOLUTELY DOES say that it has long been understood that a natural-born citizen is one who is born on the soil to citizen parents:

"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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

This is the US Supreme Court validating that a "natural-born citizen" is a person born on US soil to 2 US parents.

The problem for the deniers is that they have ZERO evidence to back up any other claim.