After all the CRAP, Did Obama Just Admit He is From Kenya???

natural born citizen = citizen at birth not requiring anything else ie naturalization.

If not what does it mean?

Where does the Constitution or US Code statutarily say that?

 

Well if you refuse to discuss it and are just going to copy and paste your response without any regard to what I posted there is no further need to waste my time with you.

 

Because she was a low level publishing clerk who was writing dustcover blurbs for lots of books that she scanned but did not read.

 

Its been posted dozens of times.. Why the hell 5haven't you read it before now?55

 

This wasn't a desk cover blurb.

 

Where does US Code say

ONLY
"Natural born citizen" = "Born on US soil to citizen parents"

I don't believe it does.

Are you disagreeing that natural born citizen = citizen at birth?

 

There is nothing to discuss. Your conspiracy theories are irrelevant to reality. The author of the bio refuted your claims.

 

It would be easier to find an elephant in a fish bowl, than to find a natural born citizen defined in the US Code.

You have to step back and ask yourself some basic questions. Why did the founding fathers designate a citizenship unique to the President only, if it included most all other types of citizenry as well? For example, you can become a citizen at birth simply by being born on US soil, regardless of your nation of origin, or by being born abroad to a US citizen parent. That's how easy the US Code has made it to become a citizen at birth.

As yourself another question. Does congress alone have authority to define or redefine the Constitution? No it doesn't. That is why the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution is immune from Congressional statute, and why the US Code can only be used to define citizenship policy in general, but not "natural born" citizenship.

So where do we find our basis for "born on US soil to citizen parents" as being the definition for "natural born" citizenship? We find it through the common law applicable at the time the Constitution was drafted, and we find it through the Supreme Court precedents that referenced said common law. We also find it though our own common sense, and the intent of those founding fathers, like John Jay, who wanted no foreign influence in the office of the Presidency.

https://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

CONCLUSION


Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.


Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

 

If I were him I would totally come out and say it just to troll you guys.

The fact that this issue is still being discussed is so sad IMO.

 

Unfortunately the Supreme Court says otherwise. US v Wong Kim Ark.

You really should read the ruling. I even quoted it for you a few pages back.

 

natural born citizen = citizen at birth, no need for a naturalization to be a citizen, they are naturally born a citizen. There is no distinction between the terms.

And you find citizen at birth in US Code where the Congress who defines it places it.

 

Presumably you refer to this:

Only the Vattel quote from Venus comes anywhere close to providing a definition of natural born citizenship; but of particular note is this:

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. []​

Would you have us believe the young lady in my scenario is a stranger as contemplated by Vattel? And if not, how is her child a stranger?

You are more than welcome to demonstrate that anything I've said qualifies as either.

Given your appeal to common sense above, I cannot help but wonder how that would impel a comparison between an explicit constitutional requirement and a condition that's not even implicit.

The problem being, that's not a definition. If it were, it would tell us, e.g., whether a child born abroad to two citizen parents is an NBC, and it doesn't, any more than the 14A citizenship clause tells us whether that child is a citizen by birth.

 

Yes, no need for a "citizen at birth" to be naturalized. Yet, that does not make a "citizen at birth" a "natural born citizen", unless they were born on US soil to citizen parents; in which case they would have no need to even refer to the US Code.

If the gist of your argument is that "citizen at birth" equals "natural born citizen", then you have no argument. Anymore than I would have an argument trying to claim that green is equal to blue.

There is a reason why the US Code uses the term "citizen at birth" and not "natural born citizen", and it's not because the two are equal, but because they are NOT equal.

 

Not a single class of citizenship in the US code gives us a definition of "natural born citizen". So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the only class of citizenship not listed in the US Code, that of being "born on US soil to citizen parents". Indeed, the only class of citizenship that needs no statute, because it is self-defining, and because it has common law and Supreme Court precedent, and because it aligns with the intent of the founding fathers; to keep foreign influence out of the office of the Presidency.

Why throw out the only piece that solves the puzzle? Just accept it, and embrace it. The "natural born citizen" clause was enacted for the good of our country; and we should all learn to respect its importance.

 

Citizen at birth is the same as Natural born citizen.. There are only TWO kinds of US citizenship.. Natural born and naturalized.

Why don't you read the statutes

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States ...


a person born in the United States to a member ... was a national or citizen of the United States under ... Regulations for which this US Code section ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

Not it matters anymore. The issue was never about an American citizen, it was about the qualification for the office of the President of the US. Such a person must be a NATURAL born citizen in order to qualify. That means being born in the US.

(Sorry if this has been posted before I didn’t bother to read all the posts in this thread)

 

Margot, the reason you can't locate the term "natural born citizen" in the US Code is because a "natural born citizen" is exempt from the code. By default, anyone born on US soil to citizen parents is not only a citizen, but also a "natural born citizen", and uniquely eligible for the office of the Presidency.

I'll try to make it simple for you. Here are the three basic tiers of US citizenship:

1) Natural born citizen (born on US soil to citizen parents)
2) Nationals and citizens of US at birth (as defined by US Code 1401.)
3) Citizenship through Naturalization

I hope this has been helpful to you.

 

Try READING the Statutes.

Nationals is another word for CITIZEN. Citizens at birth and natural born citizen are the same thing,

Anyone born on US soil is a natural born US citizen at birth.

 

All my brothers are natural born US citizens and they were born in Saudi Arabia.

 

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
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;
United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth


A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a person born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe. [1]

continued


In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:



•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and



•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2]



A person born abroad through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) to a U.S. citizen gestational mother who is not also the genetic mother acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under INA 301 or INA 309 if:



•The person’s gestational mother is recognized by the relevant jurisdiction as the child’s legal parent at the time of the person’s birth; and

•The person meets all other applicable requirements under either INA 301 or INA 309. [3]



Until the Act of October 10, 1978, persons who had acquired U.S. citizenship through birth outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent had to meet certain physical presence requirements to retain their citizenship. This legislation eliminated retention requirements for persons who were born after October 10,


1952. There may be cases where a person who was born before that date, and therefore subject to the retention requirements, may have failed to retain


https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html

 

That makes no sense Margot. A natural born citizen must be born in the US. Your brothers are US citizens but they are not natural born US citizens.

 

Yes they are.. There are only two kinds of US citizenship.. Natural born and Naturalized. Their births were registered at the US consulate .. They were footprinted and issued US passports like thousands of of other american babies born in Saudi Arabia.

I am troubled by your inability to understand the statutes.

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html

 

So if you believe you’re correct please post the exact sentence in the statute that defines any person born outside the US and its territories as a NATURAL born citizen.