References and Resources Regarding the Natural Born Citizenship
Requirement and Other Legal Questions
Bearing on Presidential Eligibility
Posted July 14, 2009
Last Modified:
2:34 AM, July 14, 2010
_______________________________________
On July 28, 2009, the Senate adopted a non-binding resolution (S Res 225)
declaring that “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama , was
born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” The House had approve an identical
separate non-binding resolution (H Res 593) on July 27. (See
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003179498 .)
[Note: Non-binding resolutions do not have the force of law. The
resolutions do not legally establish that Mr. Obama, a holder of dual
citizenship at birth, is a “natural born citizen” of the United States as
required by the Constitution. They assert that Mr. Obama was born in the
United States. They do not clarify whether or not he can be considered to
be a "natural born citizen" in accordance with the “natural born” citizenship
requirement for the Presidency found in Article 2, Section 1 of the
Constitution.
Senate Resolution 511 adopted in April of 2008 is of interest here. In that
instance the natural born status of Senator McCain was specifically
addressed. That Resolution had affirmed Senator McCain’s status as a
“natural born” citizen on the basis of his birth to two American citizens on an
American military base in Panama.]
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
Posted December 31, 2008 on youtube, produced by
http://Restoretheconstitution.org (Mention is made of Resolution 511
passed by the U.S. Senate on April 30, 2009 affirming Senator McCain’s
status as a natural born citizen owing to the fact that he was born on a U.S.
military base in Panama to parents both of whom were U.S. citizens (Then
Senator Obama voted for this resolution.)
See also references to the April 2008 Senate Resolution 511 at
http://eligibilityquestions.com .
_____________________________________________________________
Website on Natural Born Citizenship of Particular Interest:
http://Naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
The following articles pertinent to natural born citizenship status are among
those that can be found at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
~ The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles: Mr. Obama
and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins
Posted in Uncategorized on August 25, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
~ CRAIG V. US – 10th Circuit Court of Appeals – HELD (08.05.2009):
14th Amendment native born citizens have no Constitutional right to
natural born citizen status.
Posted in Uncategorized on August 24, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
~ Why Agency Heads Can Deny The President Classified Information.
Posted in Uncategorized on August 22, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
~ US Defense Security Service Guidelines, Federal Statute 50 USC
435 and Executive Order 12968 Indicate That Various Agency Heads
Should Deny President Obama Access To Classified Information.
Posted in Uncategorized on August 20, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
~ Major Cook’s Pleadings Waived Obama’s British Birth Issue, So
Judge Lazzara’s Holding Is Technically Accurate.
Posted in Uncategorized on August 13, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107424
BORN IN THE USA?
Tom Delay – proud 'birther'
'Constitution specifically says you have to be natural born citizen'
Posted: August 19, 2009
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay pulled no
punches on Chris Matthews "Hardball" show on MSNBC today when asked if
he is a "birther."
"Well, I’d like the president to produce his birth certificate," said DeLay. "I
can. Most illegal aliens here in America can. Why can't the president of the
United States produce his birth certificate? ... Chris, will you do me a favor?
Will you ask the president to show me his gift certificate — I mean, his birth
certificate?"
DeLay's outspokenness on the subject stands in stark contrast to any
current member of Congress. (snip) [Article includes video clip of exchange
between Chris Matthews and Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
or see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tvhardball_with_chris_matthews#32482749.]
__________________________________________________________
http://www.phnmedia.com/
Patriot's Heart Network Videos of Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Robert
Bennett being interviewed concerning their definitions of NBC.
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105904
What does 'natural born citizen' really mean?
Debate whether British dad's baby meets constitutional requirement
for president
Posted: August 10, 2009
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
8:49 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
The months of arguments over President Obama's eligibility to occupy the
Oval Office – based on the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the cheif
executive be a "natural born" citizen – have been fueled both by the
president's decision to withhold his original long-form birth certificate,
thereby leaving some questions unanswered, and by arguments over just
exactly what is a "natural born". (snip)
_____________________________________________________________
Senate Resolution 511 Passed April 30, 2008
http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=235
RE: RE: RE: RE: Obama
Posted by su359115 on Aug 10, 2009 12:14
"The duality also creates problems for the governments involved. MR.
JUSTICE BRENNAN recognized this when, concurring in Kennedy v.
Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 187 (1963), a case concerning native-born
citizens, he observed: “We have recognized the entanglements which may
stem from dual allegiance . . . .” In a famous case MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
wrote of the problem of dual citizenship. Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S.
717, 723 -736 (1952). He noted that “[o]ne who has a dual nationality will
be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be
competing or conflicting,” id., at 733; that one with dual nationality cannot
turn that status “into a fair-weather citizenship,” id., at 736; and that
“[c]ircumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do
acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations
of American citizenship,” ibid. Rogers vs. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
_____________________________________________________________
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110FrN47u:
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.....
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for
the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the
United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II,
Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any
Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans
serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their
country's President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent
of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States,
as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural
born Citizen';
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and
enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country
outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United
States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on
an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936
[Emphasis added]: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen'
under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
_____________________________________________________________
The following is written by Stephen Tonchen. The entire Primer is
accessible at http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm .
Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer
Last revised: June 5, 2009
Abstract
Despite the mainstream news media's silence regarding this matter, an
increasing number of Americans are concerned that Barack Obama might
not be eligible, under the Constitution, to serve as President.
According to the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot
legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless he or she is a "natural
born citizen" of the United States.
Among members of Congress and the mainstream news media, the
consensus of opinion is that anyone born in the United States is a "natural
born citizen". However, when we researched this issue a bit more carefully,
we found that the consensus opinion is not consistent with American history.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were
born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the
time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the
same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United
States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born,
your natural born citizenship is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not
resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do
so.
With only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after
1787, was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens.
The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester
Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his eligibility problem.
Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was
not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election was the first time in history that the
United States knowingly elected a President who was born after 1787 and
whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
Barack Obama publicly admits that his father was not a U.S. citizen.
According to Minor v. Happersett, there is unresolved doubt as to whether
the child of a non-citizen parent is a natural born citizen. This doubt is not
based on the imaginings of some tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on
the lunatic fringe of society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court
has actually said, as well as a variety of other historical and legal sources
which are presented and discussed here.
This Primer introduces and explains the Obama Eligibility Controversy, in
question-and-answer format, for a non-technical general audience. We've
double-checked the facts presented here, and we've cited the sources of
each fact.
[End of quoted material]
[For the remainder of the Primer, see
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm.]
_____________________________________________________________
The following quoted material is from
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US
citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?
Posted in Uncategorized on June 24, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural
born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
The State Department is part of the Executive Branch. The Foreign Affairs
Manual is hosted at “State.gov” (see
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf .)
Please note that the analysis of eligibility by the State Department – now
controlled by Obama – requires two US Citizen parents. [snip]
[This is the question that needs to be asked:]
During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his
website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British
Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a
natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by
British law?
[End of quoted material]
____________________________________________________________
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2299541/posts
The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen” (Obama
NOT nbc even if born in Hawaii)
The Birthers | Unknown | Staff
Posted on Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:37:34 PM by
real_patriotic_american
The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen”
A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the
Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is
quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those
born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only
citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were
doing. Because of the distinctive use of “natural born citizen” and “citizen,”
in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States
does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”
The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,
Section 1 - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”
Obviously missing is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these
citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term
“naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals with
citizenship.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside.
The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the
protection of citizenship from any citizen, “natural born” or naturalized.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The fifth section details something very important, it reads
Section 5 – “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power
Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the
subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the
14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution.
Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under
the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by
Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment.
By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of
what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any
foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural
born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the
Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say
that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing
a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.”
John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the
14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866),
Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not
subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment
states. They are not natural born citizens.
To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside.
The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and
logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is
being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea
that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the
coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a
“natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered
“natural born.”
Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger,
Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth
Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only
confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens,
“native born” and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since
the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims
based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows
the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while
affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.
1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment
excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was
intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and
citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment
draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens.
“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.”
3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction"
requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just
physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and
two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be
citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not
merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United
States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them
direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in
the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons
not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth
cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either
individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively,
as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born
citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of citizenship never
descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common
naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given
personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much
a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same
principle.”
5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases,
involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born
parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born
person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of
citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is
intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.
As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme
Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born
citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question
now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the
child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized
citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in
fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any
citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have
laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack
Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is
not a natural born citizen.
While many patriots will argue with clear conviction “natural born” should be
narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth
to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do
accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in
accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law
of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?
There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of
first is called Jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which is the physical location
your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, “the right of
blood,” which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of
Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is
a natural born citizen. Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the
Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus
sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This act states that in order for Obama’s right
of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent
who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have
resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had
to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the
right to claim “natural born citizen” status.
Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the
Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase “a natural born
citizen.” For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving
in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their
country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that
hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the child’s 21st
birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their
citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States,
supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature
until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates with this child
of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming
President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a
creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too
blood.
“To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning
would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation.
'In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have
its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole
instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The
many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the
constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the
high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed
it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation,
and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” Chief Justice Roger
B. Taney
The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those
who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and
natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two
to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose
just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.”
To: real_patriotic_american
Good post, however I am constantly amazed by the number of people on FR
that are unable to comprehend the plain meaning of the term "natural born
citizen". It has always been known to mean (paraphrasing the quote of John
A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment) a person born within the jurisdiction of the United States of
parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.
Both parents must be citizens in order for their child to be a "natural born
citizen." Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?
49 posted on Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:05:36 PM by vrwc1
_____________________________________________________________
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented
to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in
the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is
mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent
amendments.
If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship
is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the
United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must
also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is
an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a
non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such
that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even
this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the
framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines
the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"




Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a
citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of
the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are
citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and
lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S.
national




Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived
in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage
cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not
provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and
as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S.
for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in
this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an
alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the
jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for
example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is
eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the
children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over
time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8
USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407).
Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories
as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born
in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons
born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are
automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the
President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or
after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note
that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status
was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama
Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26,
1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was
"declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born"
or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the
Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the
Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should
be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people
to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8
USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of 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 such person." Not eveyone agrees that this
section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must
presume citizenship.
U.S. Nationals
A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a
country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally
conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the
date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of
rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same
processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who
become citizens are not considered natural-born.
Becoming a citizen
A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time
will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is
changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several
steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident
(previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming
naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States.
Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically,
though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time
constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization,
generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a
minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion
of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good
moral character.
The Oath of Allegiance to the United States
The following is the text of the Oath of Allegiance:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure
all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United
States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the
law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United
States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when
required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; so help me God.
Losing your citizenship
For a natural-born citizen, losing your citizenship is actually quite difficult.
The law prohibits the taking of your citizenship against your will, but there
are certain actions a citizen can take which are assumed to be a free-will
decision that constitutes a voluntary renunciation of the citizenship.
Moving to another country for an extended period of time does not
constitute an act that presumes renunciation. Neither does taking a routinelevel job with a foreign government. This stand is quite different from U.S.
policy of the past, where even being naturalized in another nation could be
seen as renunciation. The sections of the law that pertained to losing ones
nationality for many of these cases was found at 8 USC 1482 and related
sections.
The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a
loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer
under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United
States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers
you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that
may force you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts
must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to
lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:






Becoming naturalized in another country
Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you
are an officer in that force
Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that
you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General

By being convicted of committing treason








Study for the U.S. Citizenship Test
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
A Guide to Naturalization (Adobe Acrobat required)
Sample Naturalization Self-Test
Typical Questions from Naturalization Test (Adobe Acrobat required)
An overview of U.S. immigration law
Dual Citizenship FAQ
United States Immigration Support (Note: this is not a government
agency)
_____________________________________________________________
What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?
by John Greschak
john@greschak.com
Published: December 2, 2008
Updated: January 12, 2010
For a synopsis of this essay, see Synopsis
(http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/synopsis.htm ).
For the update log on the essay, see Updates
(http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/updates.htm .)
For the index of the essay, see http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/ .
_____________________________________________________________
ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE ESSAY on Natural Born Citizenship
The following essay on the meaning of "natural born citizen" might also be of
interest:
"NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE
OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" By ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE (ALBANY LAW
JOURNAL VOL. 66 (1904-1905) See
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/33806815 .
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=166569
Resolving the Obama eligibility question
Commentary June 15, 2010
© 2010
1:00 am Eastern
By Paul R. Hollrah
Never in American history has a national leader served under a darker cloud
of suspicion than Barack Hussein Obama. Was he born in Hawaii or in
Kenya? Did he become an Indonesian citizen in 1967? Where did he spend
the summer of 1981? Did he actually attend classes at Columbia? Did he
write "Dreams From My Father"? These are all interesting questions, but not
the most critical ones. By far the most critical question relates to his
eligibility. Is he eligible to serve as president, or is he a usurper? Let's
analyze what we actually know to be true.
First, we have the absolute and unequivocal requirements of Article II,
Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which 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."
We know that Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time the
Constitution was ratified, we know that he was at least 35 years of age when
he took office in January 2009, and we know that he has been a U.S.
resident for at least 14 years. But is he a natural born citizen? What is a
"natural born" citizen? And how do we prevent an individual who is not a
natural born citizen from becoming president or vice president? (snip)
_____________________________________________________________