Can anyone tell me

[Big RR]

Scooter--when I looked into this around the time I adopted my daughters, there were 3 ways to attain citizenship--birth in the US or on US territory (which is the general definition of natural born), derivative citizenship through the US citizenship of one or both parents (this is true for natural and adopted children born abroad, although at that time adopted children were required to file for it--I understand that this is no longer the case and the citizenship for adopted children is automatic), and naturalization. Does derivative citizenship (at birth) equate with natural born citizenship? I'm not aware of a time the courts ever looked at this, but it's a good question. I would lean toward yes, they would be natural born citizens.

[Guinevere]

I don't have the answer Scooter, none of the cases I've had the time to review on this issue have adressed that question.

I thought the statute was worth reading, however.

[Andrew D]

Are "natural-born citizen" and "citizen at birth" synonymous? If so, it would seem the question has been settled. If not, what is the purported distinction?

The issue is what the Constitution's phrase "natural born Citizen" means:

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 ....

(U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1.)

"Citizen at birth" and "natural born Citizen" are not necessarily synonymous. Some people are natural born citizens, because the Constitution says that they are, and Congress has no power to change that constitutional rule. Some people are citizens at birth, because Congress has said so -- and only because Congress has said so.

For example, Native Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...." That provision does not make Native Americans born in the US citizens of the US. Native Americans born in the US are citizens from birth, because Congress decided in 1924 that all Native Americans born in the US are US citizens from birth. (Before that, the citizenship of Native Americans was determined by a hodge-podge of treaties and statutes.)

So the question is: Is someone who is a citizen from birth only by virtue of Congress's having said so a "natural born Citizen"? Or is only someone who is a citizen from birth by virtue of the Constitution -- and whatever Congress may say be damned -- a "natural born Citizen"?

Part -- a big part -- of the problem is that when the relevant portion of Section 1 of Article II was ratified in 1789, the Constitution included no definition of who is a US citizen. That definition did not come until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

The US Supreme Court has not decided the issue. Lower federal courts have held that people born in US Territories are not automatically US citizens from birth pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment; they are US citizens from birth only if Congress says that they are.

(Lower federal courts have held that persons born in the District of Columbia -- which is a US Territory, not a State -- are automatically US citizens from birth pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The stated rationale for that departure from the general rule governing US Territories is that DC was formed from land ceded by States to the US government, so it is "in the United States" in a way in which other Territories -- Guam, American Samoa, etc. -- are not.)

So that is the distinction, purported or real: "Natural born Citizen" is claimed to mean only those people born in the United States, not including its Territories (other than DC), and not to mean people who are US citizens from birth only because Congress has decided that they are.

[oldr_n_wsr]

My head hurts.
Glad I was born here (in Queens NY) and can prove it. Also, I am older than 35yo and I am announcing my candidacy for POTUS for the 2016 election. Just send me money.
thank you and God Bless America.

[Andrew D]

The issue -- that is, stating the issue -- is really not all that complicated. (Resolving the issue, on the other hand, is enough to give anyone migraines.)

We have a constitutional provision which says that only a natural-born citizen (unless you were alive in 1789) can be President.

But we do not have a constitutional provision which tells us what a natural-born citizen is.

We have a constitutional provision telling us who is a citizen, but by equating "born" with "naturalized," the Fourteenth Amendment -- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States" -- avoids the issue of who is a natural-born citizen.

Setting aside the awkward question of the children of illegal immigrants, it is settled that if you were born in Delaware or Georgia or Alaska, etc., you are a citizen from birth. The Fourteenth Amendment says so, and that is the end of the matter. Congress has no say.

Setting aside the awkward question of people born in DC -- a question which is apparently settled, but on a dubious rationale -- it is settled that various people are citizens because Congress says so. Those people are not automatically citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment; they are citizens only because Congress has decided to make them citizens.

And that is a no-going-back arrangement: Once Congress has conferred citizenship on someone, Congress cannot (which means that neither the US government nor any State government can) take that citizenship away.

So:

(1) Some people are US citizens from birth because the Constitution automatically makes them citizens from birth, and Congress has no power over that citizenship; and

(2) Some people are US citizens from birth because Congress says that they are citizens from birth, even though the Constitution does not automatically make them citizens from birth.

So the question is:

(a) In order to be a natural-born citizen (and, therefore, eligible to be President), must that person be a US citizen from birth because the Consititution automatically makes her or him a citizen from birth?

OR

(b) In order to be a natural-born citizen (and, therefore, eligible to be President), is it enough that that person is a citizen from birth because Congress has said that he or she is a citizen from birth, even if the Constitution does not automatically make her or him a US citizen from birth?

Suppose that someone elected to the presidency was born in Guam.

If the Consitution's "natural born Citizen" means "someone born within one of the States," then that person cannot be President.

But if the Constitution's "natural born Citizen" means "someone born within one of the States or within any other Territory of the United States," then that person can be President.

That is the question.

The answer, unfortunately, remains a mystery.

[Guinevere]

Wasn't part of the intent of the "natural born citizen" clause to keep Alexander Hamilton (who was born in Nevis in the British West Indies, from ever becoming President? Not that it helps the analysis, since that island never became US Territory or a US Protectorate.

[Andrew D]

Exactly the opposite, Guinevere.

The constitutional provision is that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitutution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ...."

No one can be certain, but the prevailing view is that the exception -- even if you're not a natural-born citizen, if you were a US citizen as of 1789, you're eligible -- was put in there precisely so the Hamilton could become President: He was born in the West Indies, but he was universally acknowledged to have been a US citizen as of 1789.

[liberty]

The fourteenth says nothing about being born in a territory. Wouldn’t that mean that a person born in a territory is not a citizen under the fourteen amendments? Also natural born citizen should be a person born to parents that are US citizens. I Hear doctors say on TV say if you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras. In other words, don’t make more out of it than it is.


"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Statesand of the State wherein they reside."

[Andrew D]

The fourteenth says nothing about being born in a territory.

Well, does it, or doesn't it?

It says "in the United States". Does that include US Territories? Or not?

[Joe Guy]

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 ....

(U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1.)

It reads as though only citizens who were alive when our constitution was adopted were eligible to be the U.S. president.

[Scooter]

Punctuation throughout the entire document is weird that way.

[Andrew D]

Also natural born citizen should be a person born to parents that are US citizens.

Really? Why?

Setting aside the question of the children of illegal immigrants -- which even Wong Kim Ark leaves open, although it is often cited for the proposition that that question is closed -- why should people clearly born in the US (i.e., born in one of the States) to parents who are legal residents but not citizens not be citizens from birth under the Fourteenth Amendment?

I would really like to know, because when I was born in San Francisco -- which, believe it or not, is part of the US -- my mother was an immigrant national. She was here perfectly legally, but she was not a US citizen.

Are you telling me that I should not be considered a natural-born US citizen under Article II, Section1, and under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Are you telling me that because my mother was -- is -- an immigrant (a perfectly legal immigrant) but not a citizen when I was born (although now a citizen), I am not a natural-born US citizen, even though I was born in the US?

[liberty]

Also natural born citizen should be a person born to parents that are US citizens.

Are you telling me that because my mother was -- is -- an immigrant (a perfectly legal immigrant) but not a citizen when I was born (although now a citizen), I am not a natural-born US citizen, even though I was born in the US?

Sorry Andrew, I screwed that one up; please accept my apologies. What I meant to say is that any person born of American citizens is or should be considered natural born citizen regardless of where they were born provided their parents did not immigrate out of the country. Just because parents are on vacation or serving in the military outside of the country at the time of birth should not prevent their children from natural born citizens.

I think that it has been assumed since the beginning of the country anyone born in the country is eligible to be president and thereby a natural born citizen.

[liberty]

The fourteenth says nothing about being born in a territory.

Well, does it, or doesn't it?

It says "in the United States". Does that include US Territories? Or not?

No, territories are property not states. Territories can be sold, transferred or freed, but not states. Territories are temporary but states are permanent or as historically permanent that anything can be in this world. United States means the states that are united