Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)

Insular Cases should probably be referenced in regard to status of US territories and possession

The references to incorporated verse unincorporated territories refer to the language of the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases. These precendences are important to Goldwater's and McCain's eligibility and should probably be listed in the Supreme Court section of the article, since these cases set the precedence for where and under what circumstances the Constitution and the jurisdiction of the Congress extend to territories and possessions of the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.37.99 (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unclarity regarding meaning of "natural-born"; need for further research

The interpretation of Art. II "natural-born citizen" clause seems to need further research. It appears that the statute cited in the existing Wikipedia article does not purport to define "natural-born citizen" for purposes of Article II presidential qualifications.

There is at least one law review article that tries to shed light on this (and seems to argue for a fairly liberal interpretation): Jill A. Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L. J. 881 (1988). Pryor's article (footnote 2) in turn cites the following: Freedman, Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents, 35 CORNELL L.Q. 357 (1950); Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1 (1968); Means, Is Presidency Barred to Americans Born Abroad?, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP., Dec. 23, 1955, at 26; Morse, Natural-Born Citizen of the United States--Eligibility for the Office of President, 66 ALB. L.J. 99 (1904); McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 CONG. REC. 15,875 (1967).

An interesting United States Supreme Court case that discusses and analyzes various related issues is the following:

• United States v. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (holding that a person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. but to noncitizens is thereby automatically a "natural-born" citizen, but citing reasons indicating that a person born abroad, even to parents of U.S. citizens, does not constitue a "natural-born" citizen).

Below is some of the discussion from United States vs. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), beginning at page 655: " . . . . In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: 'There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.' 'There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.' 124 U.S. 478 , 8 Sup. Ct. 569.

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or or [169 U.S. 649, 656] explanations of it, was clearly. though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as 'Calvin's Case,' or the 'Case of the Postnati,' decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: 'The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicile.' Page 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage rei ed on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: 'The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,-one by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.' And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium), the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which 'the personal rights of the party-that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy- [169 U.S. 649, 657] must depend,' he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country (patria), and his 'nationality,-that is, natural allegiance,'- 'may depend on different laws in different countries.' Pages 457, 460. He evidently used the word 'citizen,' not as equivalent to 'subject,' but rather to 'inhabitant'; and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: 'By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.' Cockb. Nat. 7.

Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics : "British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. 'Permanent' allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes 'temporary' allegiance to the crown. 'Natural- born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' 'Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.' The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: '(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [169 U.S. 649, 658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.' '(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.' And he adds: 'The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of Enl and; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.' Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

NOTE: The opinion is rather long and can be read in full, at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

Cross-references; Also for further research: 14th Amendment

More cross-references from this article might be in order, in addition to the existing two:

• citizenship
• nationality

And any cross-referenced link-out articles (including the two noted above) should be checked for consistency.

Let's invite a constitutional scholar to weigh in on the relevance (if any) to this discussion, of Amendment XIV, section 1, concerning citizenship.

Weedin v. Chin Bow

See also Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 663 (1927) (obiter dictum that "under the common law which applied in his country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens but were aliens").

The quote actually says "this country", not "his country" (see Weedin v. Chin Bow in FindLaw). But although that was the original rule under the common law, it should probably be emphasized that this rule was changed by Congress in 1855 (as mentioned in the Chin Bow opinion). Richwales 05:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

<<< I found some discrepancies and errors. For a complete discussion of the Natural Born issue, its history, law, and application to Barack Obama, please go to http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/

In particular, the Perkins vs Elg case does not adjudicate or is precedent to the Natural Born issue. The use of 'natural born citizen' by the lower court is dicta, or an error in jurisprudence. (75.210.3.37 (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)) L.A. Daneman >>>

Latest Changes

I've editted the article to trim it to the basic, most relevant information. Some of the previous info, such as the mentioning of the "United States v. Won Kim Ark" case, I think, is not really directly relevant so I trimmed it out. Since the full 8USC1401 text is quite long, I decided to just have it as a link. People interested in the gory details can always follow it. I think my latest edits most succinctly provides all the info and relevant facts.

I added back in, but in a very pared down form, the citation to Won Kim Ark and another Supreme Court case, but they should definitely be mentioned, as they are highly relevant (even though not conclusive). I did not include mention of U.S. ex rel. Guest v. Perkins, 17 F. Suppl 177 (D.D.C. 1936).68.239.118.207 16:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

This is incorrect

However, constitutionally speaking, it should be made clear that the 14th Amendment explicitly says that a person is a citizen at birth only if he is born within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There are actually [b]no[/b] provisions anywhere that states that a person born under U.S. jurisdictioin but outside the United States has an automatic claim to U.S. citizenship. It should be noted in this regard that persons born in American Samoa, which is a U.S. territory under U.S. jurisdiction are [b]not[/b] granted U.S. citizenship at birth but are granted the status of United States National and must actually naturalize to become full U.S. citizens. With this in mind, it is not actually clear if people born in, say Puerto Rico, while granted full U.S. citizenship at birth are actually natural-born citizen if one does not conclude that "citizen at-birth" and "natural-born citizen" are equivalent.

See also: 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899 are U.S. citizens at birth.

The 14th amendment says "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."

It doesn't say *only* those people are US citizens at birth.

---

Wong Kim Ark

Please note that the correct spelling of this man's family name is Wong, not Won. I fixed this misspelling and also added a link to the existing article about Wong Kim Ark and his case. Richwales 14:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Native-born citizen vs Natural-born citizen

The article named "natural-born citizen" was renamed to "native-born citizen" (and redirected). This is incorrect. A person born outside the country to citizen parent(s) may be a natural-born citizen for purposes of US presidential eligibility (ex. John McCain, etc). However, such a person would not be a native-born citizen. Therefore, I have split the two articles. The natural-born citizen article is restored and the native-born citizen article was re-written anew.

John McCain is not a natural-born citizen, his citizenship is statutory, which means it is based on statute as enacted by Congress, not his place of birth. He was born in Panama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.127.217 (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The question of statutory citizenship as granting natural-born citizenship is unsettled. However, one cannot acquire citizenship at birth retroactively unless it is explicitly stated in the law. The 1937 law that granted Mr. McCain citizenship via his birth in the Panama Canal Zone does not explicitly state this. As such, that law cannot be used to justify his citizenship at birth. It can be used to justify his citizenship, however. I have added a reference to legal research referenced in the New York Times and generally considered sound by legal scholars (that is a sound argument, not that it is what is the law--only the Supreme Court will be able to weigh in on that) that concludes that John McCain is NOT a natural-born citizen. This is not based on the argument that statutes cannot confer citizenship. It is instead based on the citizenship law that actually applied in 1936 and it serves as the basis for a current lawsuit winding its way through the US court system right now challenging the constitutionality of John McCain becoming President of the United States.72.11.62.13 (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone locate a reference to US Code Title 8 Section 173 from 1925? It seems quite strange that the law contrained the wordings "Excluding the Isthmus Canal Zone" 72.11.62.13, From reading the reference provided, the researcher is trying to interpret the 1925 law quit absurdley - that under his interpretation Born on foreign soil, Naturalized parents, on a US Miitary Base - Not a Citizen Born on foreign soil, Naturalized parents, not on military base - Citizen He states that a US Military base on foreign is outside the limits, but not outside the jurisdiction, of the US. Key being that a child born "outside of the limits and jurisdiction" can become a citizen, but a child born into US jurisdiction cannot. In fact, his inerpretation would seem to exclude children born inside of a foreign embassy (but not outside) from naturlizd citizenship! So please, can someone find 1925 USC 8: 173 and reference it? Phonon266737 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

8 U.S.C. § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - Puerto Rico US Citizens at birth 8 U.S.C. § 1403 - Panama US Citizens at birth 8 U.S.C. § 1404 - Alaska US Citizens at birth 8 U.S.C. § 1405 - Hawaii US Citizens at birth 8 U.S.C. § 1406 - US Virgins Islands US Citizens at birth 8 U.S.C. § 1407 - Guam US Citizens at birth 8 U.S.C. § 1408 - Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth 8 U.S.C. § 1409 - Children born out of wedlock

8 U.S.C. § 1401a - 1401a. Birth abroad before 1952 to service parent (Seablade (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)) 8 U.S.C. § 1401b - Repealed. Pub. L. 92–584, § 2, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289

And what about Outside the USA?

I think this article is too much centered in the United States Constitution, and althought It was the first one which incorporated the concept It is not the only one. In fact I reached the article following a link from the "President of Brazil" page.

--Camahuetos 03:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The term natural born citizen only applies to the United States because it was created as part of the United States Constitution. The term does not apply outside of the U.S. Outside of the U.S., the term would be either "native-born citizen".

So I think It would be a great idea to create that article which is linked from this article or a section within this article refering to that fact.

I think I will add that inmediatly.

PS: Please sing your posts on the talk page.

--Camahuetos 11:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments  from E. Neufeld  History Scholar and Theologian, Mountain Lake, MN
1:30 p.m. 13  November 2008.

For Discussion: The subject of "Natural Born" (Article II Section I) has always facinated me. It was the subject of many E- Mails before the 2008 Presidential election.

I have also studied the Hatch Amendment.

The most recent publication "Our Constitution" Oxford Press 2006; Ritchie and Justice Learning.org 2006 book page 111  quotes "A natural-born citizen is a person either born in this country or born to American parents living abroad"

"I think that is too loose an interpretation"  

As far as I know that has never been tested in any court of law.

There have been citizen trials  and in some cases citizenship has been taken away,
but we really do not have answer for who is "Natural Born"
 12.218.41.104 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)  (user: E. Neufeld )

Supreme Court cases: some not relevant here

Several of the Supreme Court cases cited at the end of the article are not really relevant to the question of acquisition of US citizenship at birth. I would propose that the following cases should be removed from this article: Perez v. Brownell; Afroyim v. Rusk; and Vance v. Terrazas. Possibly also Rogers v. Bellei. These cases would be worth mentioning in the United States nationality law article, but not here. Comments? Richwales 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason they are mentioned is to show the power of Congress to define citizenship. If Congress is defining this form of citizenship, and even has the power to withdraw it in certain cases (as mentioned in these cases) then it is clear that this form of citizenship is a form of naturalization, not birth. The whole concept behind the term "natural born citizen" is that the person is just that: natural-born, and does not need laws to extend the citizenship to him or her. Today, we have codes that define who gets citizenship and who loses it, and the Court, for the most part, has upheld these statutes. Therefore, and as I wrote in the main article, although there is disagreement over who is a natural-born citizen, I think it is clear that children born to Americans overseas are NOT natural-born (otherwise how could Congress continue to revise the laws dictating who is and who is not, and by what age must they register and so on). Todd gallagher 12:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with Todd's reasoning above. Please note the following:

(1) The current Immigration and Nationality Act says that various types of non-US-born individuals are "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" [INA 301; 8 USC 1401].

See also: 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899 are U.S. citizens at birth. See also: 8 U.S.C. § 1401

(2) The current law also defines the term “naturalization” as meaning "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever" [INA 101(a)(23); 8 USC 1101(a)(23)].

(3) The current law provides for loss of citizenship by US citizens "whether by birth or naturalization" [INA 349; 8 USC 1481].

Thus, I'm not at all convinced by Todd's assertion that the concept of "natural born citizen" must clearly encompass only those individuals whose citizenship is established under the Constitution and not subject to acts of Congress. Todd may end up being shown to be right (depending on future Supreme Court rulings) — or not — but I do not believe the issue is by any means clear cut or settled at the present time. Richwales 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Richwales. Furthermore, the general legal understanding of naturalization is refers to an act whereby a person acquires a citizenship different from that person's citizenship at birth. If law provides for a person to be recognized as its citizen at the moment of birth than that is not considered "naturalizaton". In fact as Rich Wales points out above in (2), US law explicitly makes this clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.88.158.50 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Based on all relevant facts and reasoning, I have re-organized and trimmed the article to its essentials. The old article rested largely on Todd Gallagher's claim that anyone who obtains citizenship "through ordinary law" is a "naturalized citizen". This has zero basis in law and is explicitly rejected by U.S. law itself. As such it is original research. The current article best summarizes the issue without resorting to original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.88.165.35 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

It is clear that this is not a settled issue as you like to promulgate. If it were a settled, black and white issue, then there would not be a half dozen Supreme Court cases all within a 50 year time span swing back and forth on the issue of citizenship at birth overturning each other. If you would like to add commentary to the article, that is fine. But the case law stays because it is the case law that we currently go by. Statutory law on the issue, especially on the term "natural born citizen" is moot. If you want an article on "citizen at birth" then that is fine, but no high court case has ever ruled that the two are the same. In fact, proposed legislation in Congress to define "natural born citizen" and perhaps even amend the Constitution, have all failed. This proposed legislation is proof enough that the issue is far from settled. So do not delete the case law again. If you would like to add, then fine. If you would like to comment, then fine. But this will not be a one-sided argument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd gallagher (talk • contribs) 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

While perhaps some of the cases in the case law section might be relevant and should stay, I also think that much of the cited case law is irrelevant. I agree with RichWales that 'Perez v. Brownell; Afroyim v. Rusk; and Vance v. Terrazas. possibly also Rogers v. Bellei. should be removed. I've read Toddgallapher's response and I find it completely unsatisfactory. In particular I completely reject the following reasoning as having no basis whatsoever:

"If Congress is defining this form of citizenship, and even has the power to withdraw it in certain cases (as mentioned in these cases) then it is clear that this form of citizenship is a form of naturalization, not birth" (toddgallagher)

If the citizenship is the original citizenship given to someone at birth then it is not called "naturalization" as that term is defined in law or in almost all dictionaries. None of these case laws claim that they are "naturalizing" these people either. This whole "naturalization at birth" concept is bogus, I've never heard of it.

We can keep the other cases because they are sort of relevant but not all of them.Nayra 22:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The cases did not add anything tot he point, and no legitimate defense was made against their removal. Consensus seemed to be fore removal, so I removed them. In fact, I personally would go a step further and remove all case cites since none explicitly answer the question, and at best can be easily used as a method for POV pushing. CraigMonroe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Naturalization at birth" concept makes no sense and is original research

I have never come across or heard of this concept of "naturalization at birth". All definitions of "naturalization" mean to obtain a citizenship other than the one that one held originally at birth. The granting of that original citizenship however is never called "naturalization". I've removed all instances of this concept of "naturalization at birth" as it does not exist. Nayra 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing someone made you expert. Read Miller v. Albright (1996) and they use the term naturalization at birth. "The rules for naturalization at birth established by Section 309 are fully consistent with the Constitution." This is for kids who under the Constitution would not otherwise be a citizen. Therefore, the statutory law that grants them citizenship at birth is in fact naturalization at birth, further differentiating natural born citizens and naturalized citizen. "Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress." Department of Justice Brief:( www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1996/w961060b.txt ). But hey, Justice Stevens agrees with you: "The Court did not say it intended that phrase to include statutes that confer citizenship 'at birth.' And Congress does not believe that this kind of citizenship involves 'naturalization.' 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(23) ('The term 'naturalization' means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever')." Too bad that was the dissent and the majority, and thus binding law, did not agree with you. Todd Gallagher 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite, please, to the above wording? I can't find the expression "naturalization at birth" anywhere in the court's opinion in Miller v. Albright. I did, however, find the sentence you quoted in the government's brief (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1996/w961060b.txt). Richwales 06:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through Sec 309 and also Miller v Albright. I do not find anything in these that establishes this concept of "naturalization at birth". My objection isn't that it does or doesn't exist per se. My objection is that you are writing it as though it is an established concept. It isn't and you have not shown that to be the case. The U.S. DOJ brief is the only place I've seen it but such a document has zero legal weight. If you can show that "naturalization at birth" is an established concept then I think it is fine to have it in the article. Otherwise it is original research and doesn't belong. Nayra 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts." What do we not understand about this ruling? All citizens must be one of two classes: natural-born or naturalized. Even if you are born overseas to American parents, yes you are a citizen at birth, but it is through naturalization. Even the laws themselves that dictate citizenship to American children overseas are titled as the naturalization laws!Todd Gallagher 17:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The above quote is dicta, and not a holding, since Miller v. Albright was about whether or not Miller had any sort of claim to US citizenship — not about whether she was "natural-born" or "naturalized". As dicta, the statement is not a binding interpretation, and it doesn't overrule INA 101(a)(23), which defines the term "naturalization" as meaning "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Richwales 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899 are U.S. citizens at birth.

With all due respect to todd, all of the evidence you claim for establishing the concept of "naturalization at birth" is non-existent. You've cited justice department memos and dicta but not any holdings in any case law establishing this concept. In fact in statutory law, INA 101(a) (23), it is clearly stated that naturalization cannot happen at birth but only after birth. Case law and future rulings may invalidate that but nothing like that now exists. There is simply no basis for asserting that "naturalization at birth" is a valid concept.

It doesn't mean of course that just because a person is a citizen at birth that they are still natural born citizens. They still could be the former but not the latter. But it does mean that the whole argument that they are not natural born citizen because they were "naturalized at birth" has no basis in law. Richwales has already pointed out to you all the flaws of your "evidence". Please do not re-insert the concept of "naturalization at birth" again if you can't back it up with nothing more than statements and documents that have zero legal weight and zero legal standing. Magicsprite 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"You've cited justice department memos and dicta but not any holdings in any case law establishing this concept." Really? This is what you get for listening to Richwales instead of researching it on your own. The cited Supreme Court ruling does not come from the Albright case; it was referenced to. So much for dicta, huh? "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts." -United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). This was the main ruling, not gibberish thrown out. Clearly any citizen at birth born outside the US is a naturalized citizen. This case has never been overturned. So what some federal law might state that has never been challenged holds no grounds in regards to a straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court regarding birth overseas. The Justice Department memo was cited because it was the argument placed before the Supreme Court citing the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Justice Department (technically the State Department, but it was represented by the DOJ). So I will not remove the term "naturalization at birth" since it supports the Wong Kim Ark case and was used in the Albright case by the government and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of this argument.

Edit some of the language, but don't touch the content based on some misconception of case dicta. Todd Gallagher 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The quoted language from the Wong Kim Ark majority opinion is still dicta in the context of that case, because Wong Kim Ark was not born outside the US (and thus any theorizing on the status of foreign-born children of US citizens would not have been directly relevant to Wong's claim to citizenship). Further, the applicability of this part of the opinion (even in the case of the foreign-born) can legitimately be questioned because, despite the prohibitions in the Chinese exclusion acts against Chinese acquiring US citizenship via naturalization, non-US-born children of US-born Chinese fathers (e.g., three of Wong Kim Ark's own sons) were routinely recognized as US citizens (as long as US officials were convinced, or admitted they were convinced, of a given individual's parentage). Richwales 05:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think that although the Supreme Court has made it clear that only persons born in the US are natural born citizens, Congress must have some special power to bestow upon anyone it wants US citizenship. Congress has only one power regarding US citizenship: The Constitution specifically reads that Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." There is no other form of citizenship Congress has the power to regulate. The 14th Amendment clearly states persons born in the US are citizens and those naturalized are citizens. Where in the Constitution do you pull these theories from? The Supreme Court even noted: "Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution." The Supreme Court has never overruled this case; on the contrary, they have cited it many times as established case law. You seem to throw this wild idea out that this is original research. Look up the definition of original research, for I am citing both precedent and constitutional theories argued by the justices of the Supreme Court themselves. Todd Gallagher 02:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a collection of facts. Mr. Gallagher, what you have added to this Wiki are not facts but an argument - your argument, and a bad one at that. All I can think is that you are either not a lawyer or a really terrible one. Miller v. Albright dealt not with the nature of citizenship (natural-born or naturalized) but whether there was any citizenship at all. More importantly, it dealt with a person born outside the US to a US citizen father and a non-citizen mother - a situation 8 USC 1401 specifically leaves out. The implication that the meaning of 8 USC 1401 "at birth" is limited by dicta in a failed challenge to 8 USC 1409 (Children Born Out of Wedlock) is absurd. Editors, please remove this non-analysis from the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.243.9.242 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Anonymous. The purpose of the case law you cited being mentioned was to emphasize that Congress has the power to regulate naturalization in any form it deems fit. The high court upheld this power. However, now stay with me here, the Court, as you pointed out, never upholds the power of Congress to change and regulate natural-born citizenship. If Congress wanted to state that you must be 8 feet tall and have a last name with five vowels, to become a naturalized citizen, it could, according to all the case law on the subject. But defining who is a natural-born citizen, with the exception of the dissent in the Dred Scott case, has never been done. In fact, the Constitution only grants Congress the power to naturalize. Todd Gallagher (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"However, now stay with me here, the Court, as you pointed out, never upholds the power of Congress to change and regulate natural-born citizenship." Of course they haven't, because in the instant case, that power of Congress was not challenged. Indeed, the Court has never upheld this power of Congress because this power of Congress has never been challenged in 200+ years. Your implication clearly is that to uphold or strike down acts of Congress that have not been expressly challenged is within the Court's purview. You're wrong; it's not; and this is precisely the type of mindset that suggests that you have no or substandard legal training, and that you haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about. Congress has exercised the power the define the nature of citizenship on numerous occasions. In 8 USC 1401 et seq. (1978) it drew a distinction between nationality at birth and naturalization. Specifically, it distinguished between citizens "at birth" and another group of people "declared" to be citizens, with respect to whom the expression "at birth" is never used. Since, under the Fourteenth Amendment, every citizen of the United States is either natural-born or naturalized, it is clear that citizen "at birth" means "natural born" citizenship, and any citizens not specified as "at birth" are by default naturalized citizens. Keep in mind that I am not arguing for the above interpretation to be included in the Wiki. I don't want it there, as it is still fundamentally an interpretation and not a fact. Rather I throw it out there as an example of what real legal reasoning is supposed to look like, to show that your diatribe is not real legal reasoning and should be removed.

Furthermore, Todd Gallagher is attempting to argue that 1403 necessarily refers to naturalized citizens only. This is not the case. 1403 simply says that people born in the Canal Zone are citizens; it doesn't say what kind of citizens they might be. That's because they can be either: I call the editors' attentions to 8 USC 1408, "§ 1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth." This clearly refers to naturalized citizens, and it enumerates all those who qualify as naturalized citizens:[1]Note that 1408 begins, "Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title..." indicating that 1401 is the predominant section (dealing with natural-born citizens) and 1408 the fallback section (dealing with naturalized citizens.) Hence there is no basis for Todd Gallagher's implication that 1403 overrides the longstanding citizenship doctrines (codified in 1401) to classify all people born in the Canal Zone as all either natural-born or naturalized. What type they are depends on whether they fit into 1401 or, barring that, 1408 or 1409.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.243.9.242 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1403 specifically "DECLARES" all children born in the Panama Canal Zone to US citizens to be citizens. Thus, by your own logic, they are naturalized since they are "declared" to be citizens. 1401 is a broad law, and 1403 is a specific law detailing PCZ-born children of Americans. If 1403 did not intend to naturalize all US kids born there, why would it have been passed? 1401 as you state would have taken care of the US children born there. Instead, Congress specifically naturalized all kids born there through 1403. The Supreme Court has been clear on the power of Congress. It specifically stated that all laws pertaining to citizenship are NATURALIZATION laws: "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."Todd Gallagher (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 1403 did not come into being until 1952 and the original law that declared all children born in the Panama Canal Zone to be citizens did not come into effect until 1937. John McCain was born in 1936. Thus, he could not have been a citizen "at birth" under that law (although he could have had his citizenship conferred as of the date of the statute). However, this is moot. John McCain was a citizen at birth by reason of jus sanguinis.Zagrossadjadi (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

does naturalization at birth require paper work? I think quote transcripts is OR. Also, McCain was born in a military base, does that change anything? "jurisdiction of the United States" and all that. Rds865 (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

here is what Merriam Webster says naturalization means "1: to confer the rights of a national on  ; especially : to admit to citizenship" At birth a natural born citizen becomes a citizen. that is if a baby was born in Virginia today at 11:00am, then 11:00am it would be naturalized. Granted it is a broad definition of naturalization, but is shows the lack of clarity given by the Supreme Court Rds865 (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC) See also: 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899 are U.S. citizens at birth. See also: 8 U.S.C. § 1403 -

Goldwater

Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although he was born outside the United States, Arizona was later admitted as a state. How is Goldwater even relevant? Arizona was a US territory at the time of his birth. A territory is as much a part of the US as a state is, isn't it? Nik42 21:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I think this could still be a point of legitimate controversy that deserves to be acknowledged in the article.

Although US territories are considered part of the US by statute, one could try to argue (and I believe some have) that the Constitution doesn't justify treating any area outside the several states as being part of the "United States" for purposes of interpreting the Constitution itself (or amendments thereto).

Carried to an extreme, this view might even call into question the "natural-born-ness" of Al Gore (who was born in Washington, D.C.) -- though I don't recall anyone raising such an objection during the 2000 campaign, and it could certainly be counter-argued that since Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provided for the formation of the District of Columbia, it counts as part of the US as far as the Constitution is concerned.

In any case, I think there is enough of a possibility for a good-faith disagreement here that the possibility of a problem with Goldwater's eligibility should at least be acknowledged in the article. For what little it may be worth, my vague recollection (I was only 12 at the time) was that when Goldwater ran for President in 1964, some people did in fact question whether he qualified as "natural-born" or not -- though it certainly never became a major point of controversy. If anyone can find references to what was said about Goldwater's eligibility for the Presidency at the time, I'd be very interested in having this added to the article.

Richwales 06:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there should be the names in the article of those who may be affected by a very narrow interpretation of “natural-born.. “ eg Al Gore, Barry Goldwater, George W. Romney, and John McCain (perhaps him again this time?) One website of dubious facts even brings in William Howard Taft on the basis that Ohio’s 1953 application/confirmation of statehood could not be backdated to 1803! (And the requirement does not apply to Justices, Supreme Court or otherwise). Hugo999 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC) See U.S. History Fact-o-Rama

"Dubious," indeed. As far as I'm aware, the claim that Ohio didn't officially become a state until 1953 is put forth only by opponents of the US federal income tax who claim the 16th Amendment was never validly ratified, thus the income tax is illegal, no one needs to pay attention to the IRS, etc., etc. I would draw the line before any questioning of Taft's eligibility for the Presidency. Richwales 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Goldwater, I presume he would qualify as the son of US parents anyway (though some of his grandparents were immigrants). But I think like anyone born in say Alaska or Hawaii when they were (incorporated?) territories would qualify as born in a territory anyway (the page on Goldwater mentions some queries about his eligibility when he was running for President, though evidently not taken seriously). The inhabitants of the territory (was it called Arizona Territory?) vote, move to other states and get passports like anyone else?

• But are there some (unincorporated?) territories eg various islands in the Pacific where the inhabitants are not US citizens and who could not run for President?
• PS: the inhabitants of the Northern Territory in Australia have again found out that the Australian Federal Government can over-rule NT Law but not laws of Australian states (very recently over Aboriginal affairs, and a few years ago over euthanasia. But the NT inhabitants actually voted against becoming a state in 1998 (they would have got fewer federal senators than other states). Hugo999 12:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

*Natives in American Samoa and other places (mostly islands) can't be president. the children of US citizens born there, maybe

 * Wrong country Hugo. 

Goldwater's citizenship is irrelevant, because he is. He lost the election. This article could explore every possible legal loophole, that doesn't really matter any more. Like white natives of Oregon Country(at the time non-whites were considered foreign), those born in disputed territory, Canadians(the Articles of Confederation gave Canada special rights, the list goes on. Rds865 (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

United States

We have to be carefull throwing around phrases such as 'United States' and saying things like "All persons born in the United States are citizens by birth" and much of the final paragraph of the "Natural Born Citizen" as presidential qualification section. What counts as "United States", with regards to the Natural Born Citizen phrase, and it's relation to the Natural Born requirement, is itself a part of the controversy regarding the clauses meaning. While the person(s) writing the section obviously had cases such as a person born in France (whether or not to US citizens) as a person 'born overseas', there are questions about whether, say, a person born in Washington D.C. is "a person born in the United States"; what about someone born in Peurto Rico, or a US embassy in France, or in some American Territory or Possession, or a US owned airplance or boat. It's not simply whether or not "Natural Born" refers to people other than "persons born in the United States" (to, say, children of US citizens abroad), but how it refers to "persons born in the United States". What does "United States" mean in relation to the Natural Born clause. Does "born in the United States" have any specific meaning relating to the clause anyway (perhaps the final paragraph of the "Natural Born Citizen" as presidential qualification is simply saying things that are false - maybe ""All persons born in the United States are citizens by birth" is not in fact true. - Matthew238 07:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• You state: "there are questions about whether, say, a person born in Washington D.C. is 'a person born in the United States.' This has already been addressed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Union is perpetual in Texas v. White. The District of Columbia was created out of two states, Virginia and Maryland. The mere fact that Arlington and Alexandria were ceded back to Virginia prior to the Civil War without shows that D.C. is as much a part of the U.S. as any CONUS military installation or post office. To argue that D.C. is not a part of the U.S. within the means of the Constitution's use of the term "United States" would be to say that any federal property is not: The Constitution reads: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." As far as birth in U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico and embassies overseas, federal law dictates these people's citizenship. Congress has only one power regarding citizenship, and that is the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." "We have to be carefull throwing around phrases such as 'United States' and saying things like 'All persons born in the United States are citizens by birth.'" This is true; read the 14th Amendment. If they are not "citizens by birth" or "natural born citizens" then I'd like to know what they are.Todd Gallagher 15:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Gallagher that Texas v. White is controlling with respect to the status of Washington, D.C. as nowhere in that case is the subject of the federal district resolved. Indeed, the plain language of the US Constitution clearly shows that the District is NOT a state. In the 23rd Amendment it states "The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment." Now let us look at the 14th Amendment, which states, "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." However, as already indicated, the District of Columbia is not a State. Therefore, if we are to take Mr. Gallagher's argument seriously that those only those born in the United States are natural-born citizens then we must also conclude that individuals born in the District of Columbia are NOT natural born citizens. Indeed, the fact is that the reason why individuals of the District of Columbia are citizens has nothing to do with the Constitution. They also derive their citizenship by statute. That statute happens to be the Immigration and Nationalization Act, 8 USC Section 1101 (1993), which states in its definitions "(36) The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States." I believe that conclusively puts this dispute to rest and means that we either must add Vice President Gore to the list of potential person who violate this act or conclude that natural-born citizens include those born abroad to U.S. citizens.Zagrossadjadi (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If Al Gore was not eligible to be VP, then he would not have been. Was there any legal attempt to stop him from assuming office, or being put on the ballet? Rds865 (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• It does not necessarilly follow that, since he was V.P., that he was indesputably eligible to be - people break the law all the time, and when the law is vague, some action which could only be done based on a particular interpretation of that law does not necessarilly remove that vagueness or affirm a particular interpretation.

Henry Clay, Armistead Thomson Mason, and John Eaton each served in the Senate while under the age of thirty. That doesn't change the clear wording of the Constitution that a Senator must be at least 30, nor would a court these days interpret it otherwise, regardless of past facts which seemingly violate it. In any event, even if Al Gore is unquestionably eligible, I think he can still be mentioned in the article, given that he was not born in a U.S. State, and this may say something with regards to constitutional interpretation. Or it may not. This whole thing is controversial, and we shouldn't be editing the article based on what we KNOW is OBVIOUSLY correct. We should allow quite some leeway. - Matthew238 (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorporated US Territory and the Goldwater Case

The article mentions that Goldwater's case is exceptional because Arizona was later admitted as a state. But, it is even more exceptional than that, because the Arizona Territory was an Incorporated Territory of the United Sates, which means it was not merely under US ownership and sovereignty, it was US soil.

The Supreme Court and Congress differentiate between Incorporated Territory (territory over which the entire US Constitution applies in full, and forms a permanent, inseperable part of the national territory), and Unincorporated Territory (territory over which parts of the US Constitution apply, while others do not, and falls under the sovereignty and ownership of the US, but does not form part of its national territory). Most overseas territories, with the sole exception of Palmyra Atoll, are unincorporated, and are not US soil--this is not the case with the historical contiguous Territories.

If many people have put forth the Goldwater argument, then it should remain in the article for documentary purposes, the issue being to list examples of controversy, rather than to pass judgment. But, this is a case where there clearly is a misunderstanding of what constitutes "born in the United States."

--189.156.185.112 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)~ The article and this discussion is interesting, but it avoids answering the burning question related to this topic; namely - who and when would this issue be ajudicated in the event that John McCain were moving towards being elected president? Would this be when the votes of the electorial college are counted by a joint session of Congress, then one or more senator & one or more representative have to object, and the two bodies individually decide the issue? Or would it be decided by the Supreme court? I am quite confused how this very real possibility would play out and I think it should be addressed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.105.72.67 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

One possible way this question could reach the courts before the election might be if McCain's eligibility for federal campaign subsidies (matching funds) were challenged. Or, the election officials in one or more states might refuse to list McCain's name on the ballot on the grounds that they didn't think he was a valid candidate. If he were to be elected, though, I would tend to imagine that the current Supreme Court would probably decide to stay out of the fray and defer to Congress's power under the Constitution to choose the President. Richwales (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. However, the 12th Amendment only allows the House of Representatives to step in and choose the president if no one is able to get a majority of the Electoral College. They basically certify the votes. This happened in the Compromise of 1877 when there were disputed votes. I do not see disputed votes here, but rather Constitutional requirements. Could Congress, for example, pass a law stating that children born abroad are to be "considered 35 when they reach the age of 25"? This is basically what the various laws do that state foreign-born children to US parents are citizens at birth or "considered as natural-born citizens."

The Supreme Court will certainly state that it is the business of Congress to certify the Electoral College, and to choose the president or vice-president if o one receives a majority, but I do not see the high court allowing Congress to determine the qualifications of the president in direct defiance of the Constitution. Otherwise, as I gave an example above, they could make exemption of the age requirement, or the residency requirement, for certain citizens.

As for challenges to the campaign subsidies, that could kick the lawsuits off, or even the state legislatures' choosing of the electoral college members--that is state law though, but would be interesting. In the end, state legislatures, not the voters, decide who the electoral college delegates are, as determined by state law. Todd Gallagher (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.69.105 (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"None was" vs. "none were"

We seem to be going endlessly back and forth between people who want to say "none of the candidates [born outside the US] was elected" and people who prefer "none of the candidates were elected." This appears to be an area where usage is evolving, and it's not good enough to simply insist that "none" is singular and absolutely has to take "was" and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong, period, because people who prefer "none were" are simply going to keep on changing it (prompting people who insist on "none was" to keep on changing it back). Is there any sort of dictum from a Wikipedia manual of style that we can cite in order to settle this issue? Richwales (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Wikipedia policy clearly says that when two policies/rules are both acceptable, the first one stays. The singular was used first in this article. Todd Gallagher (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree with that interpretation of the policy, but if that is the controlling policy, then I believe the plural may in fact have been used first. I looked through the history of this article (as well as that of its predecessor, "Native-born citizen", before the "natural-born" material was split off into its own article), and the earliest use I could find of either "none was" or "none were" was added to the "Native-born citizen" article on December 7, 2004 ([2]). That version said: "Throughout American history, several persons born abroad to US citizen parents have sought the Presidency and none were challenged on their eligibility." Richwales (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence from that paragraph. The source does not really support the "fact" that this "issue" has not been fully addressed. Can this be reworded or better sources used? Thank you.--72.209.11.186 (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would still say that the question of exactly what "natural born citizen" means has not been fully addressed, in the sense that it is still an open legal question and will remain such until and unless a case hinging on the meaning of the phrase is ruled upon by the Supreme Court (or until a future constitutional amendment clarifies or supersedes the existing language). Richwales (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The source I removed didn't really say this. Is there a source that specifically says that the issue has never been fully addressed? If that can not be provided, I would leave that phrasing out per original research or maybe reword it? --72.209.11.186 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, looking back, my edit summary in the artilce space wasn't the best. My position is more that the source does not support the material rather than the issue has been fully addressed which has also not been proven by sources. Regardless, I would leave that sentence out until or unless it can be properly sourced. --72.209.11.186 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this is not a settled issue. Here is a "fact" from a national newspaper long after the article you posted. The New York Times ran an opinion in 1987 that specifically called into question the natural born citizenship of Americans born abroad: "The natural born phrase unfairly burdens children of Americans born abroad (as it did Gov. George Rom-ney in 1968) because it casts a shadow across any candidacy: if elected, the President-elect would surely face a challenge on the born-abroad impediment in the Supreme Court" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2DA1438F935A3575AC0A961948260&scp=1&sq=The+Constitution%27s+Flaw&st=nyt . Todd Gallagher (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The source still does not support the material. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe reword that sentence per your "fact" above? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Todd, rather than just reverting, can we reach consensus here for wording this "issue"? Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe As none of these candidates has been elected, children born to Americans overseas as "natural-born citizens" qualifing for the Presidency remains constitutionally unchallenged. ect, ect. wow, that needs help :) This material just reads as original research or crystal ball, imho--70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

John McCain is Constitutionally ineligible to be President

John McCain was born in Panama in 1936! If born in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Panama and Alaska and complied with the following U.S. Federal Laws are U.S. Citizens at birth and can be U.S. President or Vice President.

8 U.S.C. § 1405 - Hawaii 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - Puerto Rico 8 U.S.C. § 1403 - Panama

8 U.S.C. § 1404 - Alaska

According to Article II Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

Qualifications for office

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; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.102.214 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh.> As has been mentioned numerous times already, the exact meaning of "natural born", and the matter of whether a person born to an American parent or parents outside the US is or is not a "natural born citizen", remains an open question. The mere fact that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone — or that George Romney (Mitt's father and a candidate in 1968) was born in Mexico — or that Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona Territory — or possibly even that Al Gore was born in Washington, D.C. — does not necessarily mean that any or all of these present or past candidates for the Presidency were not "natural born". Does "natural born" mean "born in the U.S.A."? Or does it mean "a citizen since the moment of birth" (i.e., someone who didn't have to be natural-ized because he was natural-born)? And given that "natural born" is used (though not explicitly defined) only in the Constitution, can any source other than the Constitution itself shed any light on what it really means? Does the 14th Amendment (which, to be sure, was enacted long after the "natural born citizen" clause in the original text of the Constitution) really mean that only people born in the U.S. are automatically citizens, and that anyone else designated by Congress as a "citizen at birth" must by definition be "naturalized" and not "natural born"? These are the relevant questions, and what we need for this Wikipedia article are sources (if any) that address these questions authoritatively. Merely saying "so-and-so can't be President because he was born outside the US" is an incomplete, useless argument. Richwales (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just mentioning something doesn't make it fact. The meaning of "natural born citizen" is not under any doubt whatsoever from the point of the State Dept. The policy is clearly stated: no one born on a diplomatic mission or a military base on foreign soil is a natural born citizen for the purposes of the 14th amendment. McCain was born on a military base on Panamanian soil. The Panama Canal Zone was never US territory, and was never intended to be. The treaty establishing it was clear on the fact the US would only act as if it were the sovereign from the management point of view, not that the US would be the sovereign of the Zone. The military base has always been on Panama soil, and therefore McCain is a natural born citizen of Panama whose parents claimed US citizenship for him by reason of legislation, not natural birth status. He is ineligible to take the oath of President of the country, he will be challenged if he wins the election, and if any court in the country allows him to take the oath, then the Constitution is not worth its weight in used toilet paper. It's really that simple. He is NOT above the Constitution regardless of how much time he spent in the Hanoi Hilton. Flybd5 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're still taking as an unquestioned given that "natural born citizen" can, obviously, self-evidently, and unarguably, only mean "born in the U.S.A.". This may be true, or maybe not, but until an actual case comes before the courts, we cannot conclude that McCain is provably ineligible (or that those who support his eligibility are intentionally spitting on the Constitution). The most we can say in this article is that a controversy exists and report the various sides. As long as it appears clear that lots of people who are generally recognized as legitimate legal experts believe that "natural born citizen" encompasses anyone who has held US citizenship since birth, under acts of Congress in effect at the time of his/her birth, we cannot summarily dismiss this view — any more than we can ignore the fact that there are some other legal experts who question this position and argue that "natural born citizen" can only include people born in the United States who acquired citizenship at birth via the 14th Amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richwales (talk • contribs) 06:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At issue is the definition of natural born citizen, a term not used since the 1790 naturalization act. To define it for our purposes, the court would base it on the 18th century common law, invoking the principles of Jus suli "right of soil" and Jus sanguinis "right of blood". A definition requiring both could exclude citizens born in the United States (by the 14th amendment) to non-citizens from becoming president. It's an academic curiosity, but realistically the courts would not find a president elect McCain ineligible based on a dubious distinction between the definition of natural born citizen and his status as a u.s. citizen at birth by statute.Richard Tage (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point to consider (possibly) is that what few comments we have from the Founding Fathers on the "natural born citizen" rule suggest that their motivation was that they didn't want a president who might owe allegiance to any country other than the US. Unfortunately, this can be a very complicated question, on account of the various citizenship laws of other countries (and the US's inability to control those laws). It's conceivable that someone born in the US to foreign parents could be born both with US citizenship (via jus soli) and also with the citizenship(s) of their parents' country/countries (via jus sanguinis). This could be the case even if the parents are naturalized US citizens, because their "old country" might refuse to recognize their naturalization and insist on considering their original citizenship to be in force. A law demanding that the President must not be considered a citizen of any other country, under that country's laws, would not be advisable, because that would give another country the ability to meddle in US politics by deciding to declare a presidential candidate (or even a president) they didn't like to be one of its citizens -- thus making him ineligible!

It should also be mentioned that even though John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone -- and even if it does happen to be the case that the Canal Zone was not considered US soil at the time of his birth -- that doesn't automatically mean he was born with Panamanian citizenship under Panamanian law, just because he was born there. That would depend on what Panama's citizenship laws said at the time, and I will frankly admit that I have never studied Panamanian citizenship law and don't know whether jus soli applied across the board at the time of McCain's birth. And in any case, even if McCain was born with Panamanian citizenship under Panamanian law, that would not affect the fact that he was also born with US citizenship under US law (i.e., he might have been a "born dual"). This observation doesn't, of course, resolve the question of whether "natural born" means "born with US citizenship" or "born in the U.S.A.". Richwales (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the above argument any more. First, no statute at the time of McCain's birth granted his citizenship- he became a citizen some time later when Congress fixed its legal hole. Someone seems to question whether only a "14th Amendment" citizen can be president, which strikes me as entirely crazy: why would we look to an amendment 100 years in the future to construe a constitutional provision limiting those eligible for the presidency? Sheesh, that provision was simply inserted by a committee and never discussed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.224.92 (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain was born on a military base, which for some purposes was considered US soil. What is the status of Americans living abroad at embassies, consulates and military bases, places considered US soil? Rds865 (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The law for Military bases only applies to Official U.S. Territory. The Panama Canal, as stated by Jimmy Carter was never official, we just had permission to be there. The law published in the main article right now is misleading that he is eligible when in fact that is unknown, (anyone born in Panama to us citizens will be a us citizen,) only states he is a citizen which makes him a naturalized citizen not born on US Soil. In fact he was not even a citizen for one year of his life, being that law was made one year after his birth and went retroactive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.217.19.153 (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding your opinions to this article. They are your opinions only. DJ Clayworth (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not the article to be bringing in controversial political views that are at best fringe, and at worst have no place in this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

pov tag

Much of this article draws conclusions in an attempt to interpret the law. It, therefore, violates Wikipedia's policy against synthesized research. Please let's not speculate as to what the courts might do with a case that has the term at issue. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't be a pov tag but an original research one then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Presidential Election: section needs to be redone for NPOV, or else removed

The entire current content of this section is a POV argument advancing one side of an issue which, both in legal circles and in the public mind, honestly remains unresolved. If this section should stay at all, it needs to be completely rewritten so as to give fair presentation to all sides and acknowledge that a definitive resolution has not yet been reached. If that sort of rewrite is not possible, I believe the section should simply disappear. Richwales (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is state department policy being cited?

Why are state department memos being cited. Is someone actually trying to pass them off as precedent? Since when has the state department been given the authority to define when naturalization occurs? Did they somehow get this authority under Chevron? It seems that the inclusion of this is little more than POV.CraigMonroe (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole section about Legislation and legal arguments should be removed. Richard Tage (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. CraigMonroe (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of State, under federal law, registers all American children born overseas. Their policy is stating that even if you are born on a military base, you must register with them since you are not a citizen by birth. Todd Gallagher (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You are in fact a citizen at birth. Children born in the United States must also register with the US Department of State. More to the point, this section relates to citizenship but does not further define the term Natural Born Citizen.Richard Tage (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, where does any law say that? Last time I checked children born in the US registered with their STATE, not the State Department (slight difference)! The State Department handles FOREIGN affairs. In fact, the federal government, outside the US Census every ten years and when a parent requests a Social Security card, does not get data on domestic births.Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are correct Todd, my error was thinking about passports which of course is tangential. Though the state department's administrative function appears to be similar to that of states/territories in that it provides a document for proof of citizenship. Interestingly enough foreign born citizens at birth are given a certificate of citizenship, while those naturalized are given a certificates of naturalization. Unfortunately, I don't believe it is of any help in clarifying if a foreign born citizen at birth is also a natural born citizen.Richard Tage (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Todd, however that in no way answered--any--of my questions. Again, were they given the authority under Chevron? If so, what case stated that, or what statute gave them the explicit authority? If not, it has no precedential value. It seems as if this entire issue has been stretched out of nothing. As has been pointed out by numerous posters.CraigMonroe (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Craig, Read 8 USC 1104. The Department of State is in charge of registering foreign born children of US citizens. So their department policy on exactly whom to register (in this case, military children) is important. It seeks to remind them that military children are not citizens by birth and in fact do need to be registered like other foreign born kids.Todd Gallagher (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Todd, I will lay this out for you very simply. Under the Chevron doctrine, Congress can give any agency the power to interpret a statute, and that interpretation will be given precedential value nearly equal to that of Congress speaking. However, there are certain requirements that must be met. Now you say they have the authority to interpret what “natural born citizen” means. So where did Congress give them the power to interpret the Constitution in an area that only Congress has the Constitutional authority to interpret? What you don’t seem to understand is that the State Department has not say over the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution. What they do have authority over is to set up registration and verification for US citizens born oversees, and immigration. These are two entirely different issues. In other words, the state department has little, if any, bearing on this point. So again, where did Congress give the state department the power to define when a person becomes a “natural born citizen?” You have yet to answer this question. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you reference your statement "are not citizens by birth" more specifically. I am further concerned to see that notes 4,5 do not support their associated statements regarding naturalization. Richard Tage (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note 4 specifically states: "Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth." How does the reference not support that? The reference takes you to the State Department list of federal laws that apply to each (and clarifies: "A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).") Note 5 is atatched to the following statement: "One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."" The reference then cites a newspaper article which covers a proposed federal law (Natural Born Citizen Act) which would cover this issue: "His Natural Born Citizen Act would include children born outside the United States to citizen parents or parents able to transfer their citizenship. That would include McCain, whose parents were citizens, as well as an estimated two million others who, according to government figures, have been born to U.S. parents living and working overseas. Such clarification "provides comfort and certainty to members of the American military and foreign services," Nickles explained, "as well as expatriate families, that their children, too, are eligible to run for president." Obviously there is a dispute, as the article reads, or else a law would not be needed and there would not be articles being written covering it (like the recent New York Times article and proposed federal laws to clarify it).Todd Gallagher (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the wiki statement "he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized." is not supported by the note 5. There is a beautiful quote in the article ""The constitutional wording has left doubts about whether those born on foreign soil are on an equal footing with those whose birth occurred inside the country's borders, and whether they have the same rights."" that gets to the heart of the issue than anything listed in the wiki article though. If Note 4 applies only to statutes using "at birth" fine, but there is no support for the term "by birth" as neither term, by or at, is used in the 14th amendment.Richard Tage (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying there is a dispute on this issue. Alright, what court case is dealing with this issue right now? Has McCain's candidancy been challenged? If not, there is no dispute and are creating websites on non-existant legal issues. From my perspective--take it for what its worth--to have an actual legal issue, a court must be deciding the case, or it must be affecting the rights of another person. What we have here is neither. Theorhetically--at best--it may affect a person in the future. However, the argument falls apart when looked at through the reality that John McCain has twice run for the Presidency without any challenge. Do you honestly think if there was an issue that at least someone wouldn't have attempted to challenge it? Due to this, the best approach is to remove all of this information since Wikipedia is not a court, or a law review. See WP:FUTURE. When this issue actually arises, it will be different. Look at it from this perspective, there are many differing legal views in thousands--if not millions--of areas of law. If every view gets its space when it hasn't affected anyone, Wikipedia will turn into a law review publisher, and little else. So lets agree to take a reasonable wait and see approach? If it makes it to court, include it. If it doesn't, don't. Additionally, as of right now, the whole argument violates WP:V, WP:POV, WP:FUTURE, and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. There are probably more...CraigMonroe (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say there is a legal issue? It states there is dispute and controversy, and the articles and even PROPOSED LEGISLATION addressing this have been cited. Obviously there is dispute. Even the legislator acknowledges this.Todd Gallagher (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed legislation creates a dispute? Are you serious. Do you know how many bills are handled in just Congress in a given year? Do each of those create an issue? Should each have an article? Do you have any idea how far reaching the argument you made is? Not to mention the reality that bills are proposed for reasons that do not include the intent of passage, i.e. political grandstanding. Second, you haven't cited any proposed legislation in the article. Third, you cite to numerous LEGAL arguments. This is a legal issue. Not to mention the dozen or so Supreme Court cases cited at the bottom tend to point to this. Fourth, statements by a Congressmen do not necessarily create a legal issue. Particularly when there has been no challenge to the only current candidate mentioned in the article. So, as has been pointed out by numerous posters, there is no issue here. IF, McCain is challenged on the point, there may be an issue. Again, as of right now, the whole argument violates WP:V, WP:POV, WP:FUTURE, and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please work to fix this. CraigMonroe (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

CraigMonroe, I think this section and the case law one is better served by directing the legal arguments to WP:Birthright citizenship in the United States of America and possibly WP:United_States_nationality_law. As they stand on this page, it is a collection of facts about citizenship with arguments/observations how they might relate to the being a natural born citizen.Richard Tage (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the information being moved. However, the fact that the information contains "arguments/observations" with "how they might relate to the being a natural born citizen" from my perspective tells me that the information violtes numerous wikipedia rules for posting. Thus, it should not be included in any article. CraigMonroe (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First 8 or 9 presidents

I find it interesting that there was never an issue concerning the U.S. presidents who were born in the British colonies prior to the existence of a nation called the United States. John Tyler was the first president born in the constitutional U.S. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting point, I suppose those first presidents under the constitution were not considered natural born citizens, otherwise the clause "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" would have been superfluous.Richard Tage (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have given up editing this article, as there is obviously much ignorance here. Hopefully a Supreme Court case will resolve this one way or the other. Evb-wiki--are you actually a lawyer? Because your above statement is one of the most ignorant I have seen on here. The Constitution EXEMPTED all persons who were alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution from the natural-born requirement. So either you did not know that, or you are throwing questions around just to throw them around. Todd Gallagher (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to be mean. I was aware the Constituion specifically exempted them. However, the fact remains that the arguments you want to add are incorrect. Not to mention, not an issue, and strictly POV. CraigMonroe (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the use of the words "A citizen of the United States at the time of the Constitution" left open the possibility for Alexander Hamilton to eventually become President of the United States, which would otherwise be denied to him by virtue of the fact that he was born in the West Indies. If it was meant to deny him this opportunity the founders would have written "A citizen of the United States at the time of the Constitution who was born in one of the original colonies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.62.13 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewording: Legislation and legal arguments

Current U.S. statutes grant 'citizens at birth' which includes amongst others, those born in the United States, those born in certain U.S. territories, children of U.S. citizens, and members of aboriginal tribes. The term natural born citizen is used once in the first naturalization law on March 26, 1790: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." The constitutional power of congress to pass a uniform law of naturalization does not include the power to define 'natural born citizen.'

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats or Native Americans) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Fourteenth Amendment exclusively defines citizenship then all citizens not covered by the the Fourteenth Amendment would be considered 'naturalized' by the constitutional power of congress. The constitution as originally adopted has no explicit definition of citizenship, though this does not limit a judicial ruling that it is wider than defined in the fourteenth amendment.

>Trying to bypass the 'by birth" and "at birth" since they appear to be derivative argument from the 14th amendment and U.S. statues. Would the above statements above be an improvement? Also the state department memo could be replaced by a reference addressing the limited geographical scope of the 14th (to US States and DC)).Richard Tage (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for people to construct legal arguments advocating a specific position. However we discuss this issue, it has got to include a fair acknowledgment that more than one mainstream position exists on the question, but without trying to argue the issue in such a way as to make it look like Wikipedia is advancing a single position.

Thus, for example, it may be appropriate to say that some people consider the two expressions "citizens by birth" and "citizens at birth" to be fundamentally different concepts, whereas other people view them as two completely interchangeable ways of saying exactly the same thing. But we mustn't say that these two expressions are either obviously distinct, or self-evidently equivalent, unless we can cite a definitive source (most likely meaning a decision of the Supreme Court) that says as much.

Or, we can (and probably should) mention that some people argue that anyone not deemed a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment could be considered a citizen only under Congress's naturalization power — while other people believe that "natural-born" citizenship need not necessarily derive from the Fourteenth Amendment alone. And we should probably point out that since some people believe that anyone not born in the United States must by definition be "naturalized" (and thus not natural-born), controversies have therefore arisen in some circles over whether areas such as the Arizona Territory, the Panama Canal Zone, or even Washington, D.C. are or are not "in the United States" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment — whereas other people, who do not accept the notion that natural-born can only mean "born in the U.S.A.", dismiss arguments over the legal status of the Canal Zone as utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. But we can't cross the line and start trying to write a legal brief (in Wikipedia's name) supporting one side or the other.

Or, we can point out that people disagree over whether any act of Congress or regulation of the Executive Branch can validly define "natural born citizen", but we shouldn't be trying to advance any particular position on this question (though, to be sure, it might be pertinent to cite a Supreme Court ruling like Wong Kim Ark, where the court said that acts of Congress "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect"). You may feel, personally, that some of these various positions are transparently obvious, or frivolously ludicrous, but we can't say that in a Wikipedia article — especially given that no solidly on-point Supreme Court ruling has ever been issued relating to the question of eligibility of anyone whose "natural-born-ness" was challenged.

And, if I dare say so, if some of us feel so passionately (on either side) about this article that we can't see ourselves writing something that wouldn't inevitably lead the reader to make up his/her mind the same way as we already have, maybe it might be better if we stepped back for a while and allowed others to try to make it balanced and neutral. Richwales (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How do things look from the other direction?

Is a citizen either "natural born" or "naturalized"? If so, would it not make sense that if a citizen is not "naturalized" then s/he must be "natural born"? So, it would seem to me wise to determine what, if any, requirements exist for a person to be "naturalized". Then, if a person who is defined to be a citizen has not met these requirements (assuming some exist), then s/he is therefore "natural born". Q.E.D. Cjbreisch (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No that is an incorrect conclusion, because there is a third type of citizenship that has been widely discussed in legal forums at the state and federal level and which you are excluding: statutory citizenship. That is the citizenship that John McCain has. Not natural-born because he was born in Panama, but rather granted by virtue of statute. That is also the citizenship that people born in Puerto Rico have, because it is based on the Jones Act. The Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917 was replaced with this U.S Federal Law changing the status of the U.S. Citizens by the Jones act to U.S. Citizens at birth by the 8 U.S.C. § 1402. See also: 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899 are U.S. citizens at birth.The Supreme Court has also stated that Congress can grant citizenship in many ways, but not natural-born citizenship, just statutory citizenship or naturalization processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.127.217 (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to find more sources exploring this view and add them to the article as appropriate. Just be sure, though, that you do not cross the line by rewriting the text of the article to say anything approximating "John McCain is not really a natural born citizen, but is instead a statutory citizen". Even if you yourself are convinced this is the only true conclusion, we can not adopt one side of this debate in the article itself and say that this or that view is right and other views are wrong; we need to give fair, balanced treatment of all significant positions, even positions we may personally reject. Apologies if I'm jumping the gun and you weren't planning to take sides in the article text itself; I'm just hoping to forestall any such excursion into POV-space. Richwales (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone confirm Hawaiian Naturalization law: Since Barak Obama's Mother was under 24 years of age, and his Father was not a US citizen, he is considered a Naturalized citizen.

8 U.S.C. § 1405 - Hawaii 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - Puerto Rico 8 U.S.C. § 1403 - Panama

8 U.S.C. § 1404 - Alaska

I believe the law was changed in the 1970s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.106.156 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Total rubbish, as far as I'm aware. By the time Obama was born in 1961, Hawaii was already the 50th state. Thus, regardless of any other issues or circumstances, he was unquestionably born in the US and (per the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause) has been a US citizen since birth. Richwales (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now a question as to whether he was registered born in Hawaii (and born in Kenya), and whether the "parent was a US citizen" law applies. Because of Barack's mothers age, that rule might not have applied. I'm not trying to put it on the main page, but Barack Obama may fall into the category of Non- Natural Citizen, making him illegitimate for office. This has all happened because he has not released his real birth certificate. Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible that John McCain is being questioned for natural born citizenship while there is little mention of Obama. McCain was born to an American citizen, and because of the retroactive law after his birth which served to clarify whether people born there were born as US citizens, he was clearly born a natural born citizenship. In my opinion of course, but it seems idiotic to argue otherwise, not too mention it's a punch in the face to Americans serving or traveling overseas. Meanwhile, Obama has not released an official birth certificate. There is absolutely no proof that he was even born in Hawaii, not too mention his sister(?) named 2 different hospitals where he was born in 2 different interviews... considering his dad is Kenyan (mostly Arab ethnically) what the hell kind of country do we live in when presidential candidates aren't even required to provide proof of birth. If he was born in Hawaii he should be clearly eligible for office, I agree, but the fact that he can't provide a birth certificate and his own family has said they were present at his birth in Kenya is ridiculous. What's more crazy is the fact that none of the mainstream media outlets would ever pick up on this... biased crap is all they are. Why not have an open debate regarding both candidates eligibility; the public deserves at least that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.123.15 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 8 U.S.C. § 1403 - Panama 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - Puerto Rico 8 U.S.C. § 1405 - Hawaii

There's no question that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, except by racists and idiots. He's released his real birth certificate, the Hawaii registrar has vetted it, and indeed, an issue of the Honolulu Shopper from August 1961 has his birth announcement, so this conspiracy must go back 47 years! But please, don't let the facts get in your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.250.4 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Here,here. Wikipedia is no place for conspiracy theorists. Anyway, I'm not sure why one US Citizen parent would be insufficient to confer citizenship, regardless of birth location. There is no "pure blooded American" clause in the constitution.75.82.133.73 (talk)

§ 1405. Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

§ 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

§ 1404. Persons born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867

A person born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867, except a noncitizen Indian, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A noncitizen Indian born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867, and prior to June 2, 1924, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of June 2, 1924. An Indian born in Alaska on or after June 2, 1924, is a citizen of the United States at birth.

§ 1402. Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.

1937 law: "retrospective" vs. "retroactive"?

Someone just changed the "US presidential candidates born outside the US" paragraph to say the 1937 law declaring people born of US parentage in the Canal Zone to be US citizens had "retroactive" effect, as opposed to "retrospective" effect. I disagree with this change and am reverting it, but before I do so, I want to explain my reasons so people don't think I'm just being stubborn and/or using a weird word that doesn't really exist.

There is a subtle, but important difference, between "retroactive" and "retrospective". Roughly speaking, a retrospective law says that, from now on, things will be different because of something that happened in the past. A retroactive law, on the other hand, effectively rewrites history by declaring that something in the past is and always was different from what everyone thought before the law was passed. (If someone else feels they can do a better job of describing this distinction, by all means please go ahead.)

This distinction could be crucial in the case of the 1937 law because the law said that a person covered by the law "is declared" to be a US citizen, even if he/she was born before the law was enacted. But since the 1937 law did not explicitly say that people born in the Canal Zone before 1937 were to be considered to have been US citizens all along, some people have argued that John McCain still wasn't considered a US citizen at the time of his birth despite the 1937 law. Such an argument may or may not hold water, but it is being made in some circles, so we need to be careful about which term (retrospective vs. retroactive) we use here. Richwales (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What are these circles? Rds865 (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the statement referencing the "no ex post facto law" section of the US Constitution. Per the US Supreme Court ruling in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), it is applicable only to criminal cases.Zagrossadjadi (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You're description of retroactive and retrospective are pretty much correct. However, you choosing the law here to be retrospective is only an opinion. The debate should be spotlighted on the page, not one opinion. As you say, the law does not state explicitly that people were always considered US citizens, however it absolutely does not say they were not. My opinion is that it the retroactive law obviously entails they were always a citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.123.15 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration to get this to good-article status

This appears to be a very high-importance article and so it would be nice to see what we can do go get it to good-article status. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

proposal #1: split United States into its own article

There is another possibility that I want to propose as an alternative:

The section on the United States in this article should be written in the same general manner as the section on qualifications for the Presidency in the page on Article Two of the United States Constitution; that is, keep the quote from the Constitution, and include a concise summary of the academic debate on what exactly constitutes a "natural-born citizen."

Then, split the current content of the United States section of this article into a completely new page, and see if we can get both the existing page on Article Two of the United States Constitution and the new page into Good Article status. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support a split, with an overview article and a US centric one. (ie. natural son & a US title) 70.51.10.188 (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:WikiProject Good Article Collaboration Center/Nominations (item #17) for related comments. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

proposal #2: move this article to natural-born citizenship in the United States

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is already fairly well-developed, but most of its content pertains to the United States, with little content pertaining to other countries. Moving the article will allow the page history to be preserved. Then a new stub can be created regarding natural-born citizenship in various countries of the world. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since it is pretty much just a U.S. legal term for "native-born citizen", why does it need to be renamed? The only usage of this term will relate to the U.S., so adding "-ship in the United States" seems redundant. The Honduras mention is almost spurious to what this article is about, since the Honduran legal term is definitely not "natural-born citizen". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I want the article to be developed into good article status, but it would take more work to develop the entire article than just the U.S. section, and if only the U.S. section is improved then the article may become so U.S.- centric as to fail WP:NPOV. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but what I am saying is that this is a United States legal term for something close to native-born citizen, so this article already is the U.S. version. The article doesn't need "United States" in its title to signify that it is U.S.-specific. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If consensus is that detailed coverage of the United States in this article, with only passing mention of other countries, is NPOV, then we're back to my original comment, which is that this is a timely topic that I would like to be brought up to (or to bring up to)   good-article status. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The term is taken directly from Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: "No Person except a natural born Citizen […] shall be eligible to the Office of President". This article is necessarily U.S.-centric, just like "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is. Don't worry, it can be a U.S.-centric article and still be without POV. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 3: Use official legal language

I propose this be renamed Natural born citizen, which is the language used in the United States Constitution. You can see it in this image at the second indented paragraph—actually, it says "natural born Citizen", but that doesn't fit the naming convention. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the article is to be a split of the United States section; no, if it is to cover all countries that have analogous legal provisions. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Would the analogous term be something like "citizenship requirements of elected national leaders" or "legal requirements of elected national leaders"? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. If consensus is to focus natural-born citizen on the United States, then we are back where we began: that is, we need to get this to good article status. On the other hand, it seems there may be no consensus on the proposals to split or move.... 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover

There has been a lot of talk regarding the natural-born requirement, but little concerning the others - age and resdency. For example, Hoover had been living in the U.S. less than 14years prior to his election [3]. Also, the Constitutional amendments proposed would remove the natural born requirement, but not others. I haven't come accross any proposals to remove these, but an argument could be made, similar to the ones made regarding natural-born (eg. "If 60million American's want to elect a 34-year-old President, should the constitution say they can't?") - Matthew238 (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Power of Congress

It states this explicitly under US constitutional definition:

Although the United States Constitution does not explicitly define the term "natural born citizen", Section 8 of Article I confers on Congress the power: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." This power has been construed[weasel words] to include defining the characteristics of a "natural born citizen"[citation needed], as well as the conditions of "naturalization".

And implies it when talking about John McCain, but does Congress have the power to define/make someone a "Natural-born citizen". It clearly has the power to make citizenship laws (restricted, however, by the 14th Amendment), but can it define 'Natural-born' or is this a matter for the Constitution only, as suggested in the United States nationality law article? If this is a matter of controversy (I think it is), it should say so in this article. - 121.208.89.240 (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the power of congress to "construe" "natural born citizen" is highly suspect, because it takes a birthright (citizenship) and makes it into a political football. If Congress can at will strip citizenship away by defining someone as a noncitizen or non-natural born then it has the power to do the most egregious acts (since aliens relatively speaking have no rights). But, it's pretty clear that citizenship can NOT be stripped without one's assent. Therefore, I'm just about 100% sure that this is not a case of "citation needed" but a case of a political landmine of inaccuracy that has defeated the otherwise noble goals of this wiki in the area of objectivity. If you google the phrase "defining the characteristics of a "natural born citizen", as well as the conditions of "naturalization"" you'll find a bunch of political opinion blogs that say "citation needed" on the power of Congress to define "natural born citizen." in addition, states don't modify the Constitution, except possibly where the constitution itself contemplates implementing legislation, such as in the 24th amendment banning poll taxes.

Citizen at adoption of Constitution

Was there a U.S nationality law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, or was everyone simply a British subject? If so, how can you distinguish between, say, an Alexander Hamilton, and some guy born in England, or one of it's many colonies, in 1880, and who moves to the U.S for the first time at age 60 - could they become President? - 121.208.89.240 (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the US constitution you will find that to be President you have to be a 'natural born citizen' or a citizen at the time of adoption of the constitution. Unlikely to be relevant any more, despite the jokes about John McCain. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But was there, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, even such as thing as a U.S. Citizen - or was everyone simply a British subject? - Matthew238 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Up to the independence of the US there was no such thing as a US citizen; not just because there was no country called the US, but because, as you put it, everybody was a British citizen. You can see this from the colonies that didn't declare independence - for example there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship until 1947 (IIRC - give or take a year).

In passing I should note that while "everybody was a British citizen" not everybody was a British citizen. Some residents would not have had citizenship status. See British nationality. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of that section was explicitly to allow Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the West Indies, to become President at some point.Zagrossadjadi (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles Curtis

I find it interesting that there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's nomination due to having been born in Arizona Territory since Vice President Charles Curtis was born in Kansas Territory in 1860, one year before statehood. nwebster84 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• That should definitely be mentioned in the article. - Matthew238 (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC

References

I do not think "obamacrimes.com" is the kind of quality reference that should appear in the Wikipedia. I haven't edited it out, but I think some better sources would improve the article.

Unless the Supreme Court has in fact agreed to act on the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (other than to deny certiorari), I see no reason at all why this suit deserves any more prominent mention than do the other two suits that have also been dismissed by federal district courts. Neither Right Side News nor obamacrimes.com appear to me to be neutral sources — as best I can tell, they're POV blogs. Richwales (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court announced that it had denied cert in Berg v. Obama et al. today. Someone else had the good sense to delete the obamacrimes.com reference.Kevin (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, the reference to de Vattel's influence on the writers of the Constitution is backed by a citation from Fidelio, a magazine published by the LaRouche movement. Is this really a good citation? Evilteuf (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Natural Born includes any part of the United States

Therefore I removed references to Al Gore and Barry Goldwater. No one doubts that the District of Columbia and the Territory of Arizona are part of the United States. Natural-born means not born in a foreign country. It means born in the USA. And the USA consists of more than the 50 states. The point of "natural-born" as demonstrated above is to denote a citizen who is a citizen by virtue of his birthplace. Therefore everyone born in DC is an American citizen. Everyone born in Arizona attorney before it became a state was automatically an American citizen (even if their parents were foreigners). But NOT everyone born in American Samoa is automatically a citizen. Therefore a person born in American Samoa is not "natural-born citizen" and could be a citizen by statute or by naturalization. GreekParadise (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC) See also: 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941 are U.S. citizens at birth.

Natural born citizens include the following U.S. Territories: Puerto Rico (8 U.S.C. § 1402), Alaska (8 U.S.C. § 1404), Hawaii (8 U.S.C. § 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 U.S.C. § 1406)

All person born in the Alaska on or after June 2, 1924, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Alaska was declared U.S. State on January 3, 1959.

All person born in the Hawaii on or after April 30,1900, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Hawaii was declared U.S. State on August 21, 1959.

All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.

All person born in the U.S. Virgin Islands on or after February 25, 1927, are natural-born citizens of the United States.

Not Natural born U.S. citizens:

Natural born U.S. Citizens does not include the following U.S. Territory: Guam 8 U.S.C. § 1407

Natural born U.S. Citizens does not include: Panama 8 U.S.C. § 1403

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

United States definition under the United States law for nationality purposes: 8 U.S.C. § 1101 o. “United States” means “the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States” (Section 101(a)(38) INA). (36) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States. 7 FAM 1121.4-2 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) (TL:CON-66; 10-10-96) a. Under the INA (effective December 24, 1952 to present), the definition of: (1) "United States," for nationality purposes, was expanded to add Guam; and, effective November 3, 1986, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (in addition to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands of the United States). Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States; and (2) "Outlying possessions of the United States" was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

Donofrio v. Wells

And speaking of "changes" to the article. My addition, of today, was removed entirely, and I disagree that it should hve been removed. The case of Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant vs. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State, number 08A407,is in the hands of the Supreme Court. The issue will be discussed on Decmeber 05 in "Conference" by the nine Justices. Editting my addition would be acceptable to me, but the very case name and all contents of my addition seems to be an attempt to blot the case from existence.

Donofrio's blog is more than what we think of as a blog. HIS blog has all the saga of his case, including the letter from the New jersey Attorney general dated Ocober 29, 2008. The blog is not only the words of Donofrio, but incluses the DOCUMENTATION of the saga. BEYON the blog, put a link to the Suprme Court placing it on the docket.. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

And further, this case is in regards to THREE candidates' eligibility; and to me, that makes it noteworthy on the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Benjamin (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[I moved the above comment to the bottom of the talk page so it will get noticed, and not lost in the midst of all the older comments.]

At the moment, it appears the last judgment rendered on Donofrio's suit was a summary rejection by the New Jersey Supreme Court on October 31, 2008. I appreciate the apparently unusual interest being shown in Donofrio's case by Justice Thomas (US Supreme Court), but IMO it is premature at the moment to say anything substantive about this case here in the "Natural-born citizen" article. Right now, it doesn't seem to me that the case merits anything more than a passing reference to its rejection by the NJ courts (along the lines of the three federal court cases already mentioned). Also, Frank Benjamin's addition to the article (which Blue-Haired Lawyer removed) was phrased in such a way that it really belonged on the article's talk page, not in the actual article. (Hint: If you're going to sign your editing, it doesn't belong on the article page — it should go on the talk page.) Richwales (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Frank Bejamin here. Sorry that I am new to editting the wikipedia and may have broken form in my editing of the natural Born Citizen article, by adding my name. Again, my addition could have been editted to "fit" the proper form of the article, but it did upset me that my entry was totally removed. That the Supreme Court has moved this casr to the "in conference" position, which is not an ordinary practice, that the speediness is akin to the Bush v Gore case of 2000, I still believe that a MENTION in the main article is warranted. However, let's see what the Supreme Court decides on December 05. Maybe one day, there will be an article specifically for the Donofrio v Wells case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Until some suitable source can be cited regarding Donofrio v. Wells or any similar case, I don't see how we can add anything to the article. The only sources I can find on this case so far are blogs. Is there really not even one recognized mainstream source for current info on this case? (And before anyone objects either that the blogs in question are of exceptional quality, or that there's a pervasive conspiracy to keep this story out of the mainstream media, please review WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE.) Richwales (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

FB here again. The Supreme Court is not a suitable source regarding this case? http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.

Recorded radio interviews with Mr. Donofrio explaining his case is not a reliable source of the subject matter of his case against Ms. Wells?

No matter. Friday is approaching — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

First off, the link you gave to the Supreme Court cite appears to be broken; it gives me a 404 (not found) error.

It is odd that the website addy is no longer working. However, going to the main page, or to the docket page http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.html and searching for 08A407 will get you to the page.

Even if the Supreme Court link were working, though, it would only be a source for the fact that Donofrio has filed a lawsuit / appeal / certiorari request / whatever, and also for whatever the current status or disposition of his request is. This would not be a source for any claim that the Supreme Court is acting on Donofrio's request in a significant non-routine fashion — e.g., your claim that moving the case to "in conference" suggests the court may be inclined to consider it, and quickly.

Similarly, a recorded radio interview with Donofrio would be a source only for the fact that Donofrio said such-and-so. It would not be a source backing up the reliability of whatever he said.

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification.

In general, Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources in most situations. For example, something from a mainstream news source, legal journal, etc., discussing Donofrio's case and commenting on the significance of the manner in which the Supreme Court has been handling it. For more about why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources and discourages more than sparing use of primary sources, see WP:PRIMARY. And, again, blogs and other self-published web sites are normally taboo per WP:SPS, and claims of an orchestrated coverup by the mainstream media are considered extraordinary (thus requiring extraordinary evidence) per WP:FRINGE. Richwales (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The only evidence that I have of a "coverup" is the lack of reporting by the mainstream, despite emails to them, informing them of this case. I see your point, however, about "secondary sources, though.

For what it may or may not be worth, here is a mainstream source mentioning the Donofrio case. As of Friday, December 5, the Supreme Court has not announced whether they will consider Donofrio or not; an announcement is expected Monday. Richwales (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I started the article so that I could read all those experts explanations. Thanks in advace. Tony (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this helpful information, for addition to the article? http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/05/obama-citizenship-case-gets-high-courts-attention/ http://libertymaven.com/2008/11/16/obama-was-born-a-british-citizen-according-to-the-british-nationality-act-of-1948/3289/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Benjamin (talk • contribs) 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your first source (from the Wall Street Journal's legal blog) may be useful. The second source (from libertymaven.com) is just another blog, and a highly POV one at that, and would (IMO) definitely not be appropriate here.

As for the argument being described on these sites — namely, that even accepting as a given that Obama was born in Hawaii, he is allegedly still not "natural born" because he was born with dual citizenship via his Kenyan (British subject) father — I imagine this may be an extrapolation of John Jay's caution about allowing "the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government", but in my view, it's a tenuous argument at best, and probably unworkable in practice, since the US has no control whatsoever over the citizenship laws of other countries. Would it really be appropriate for a US-born person to be ineligible to be President because some other country had conferred its citizenship upon him/her on account of a parent, grandparent, or even a more distant ancestor being one of its citizens? (Read the article on multiple citizenship if you're not familiar with how complicated a matter this can be.)

If being born with dual nationality were a bar to being a "natural born" US citizen, then some other people through the years would not have been eligible to be President. For example, Michael Dukakis (the 1988 Democratic candidate) was born in the US, but his parents were both immigrants from Greece, and I would assume he was born with (and possibly still has) Greek citizenship according to the laws of Greece, no matter what he or US officials might think to the contrary. Did anyone ever challenge Dukakis's eligibility for the Presidency on this basis in 1988? Richwales (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Were Dukakis parents US Citizens at the time of Michael's birth? If so, Michael, but not his parents, was a natural born citizen, per Donofrio's research of the term. But as THIS section of the talk is on the Donofrio case, let us keep our attention on that.

I congratulate the mainstream media, for finally explaining correctly for the first time, what the Donofrio case alleges. It toook for the Supreme Court to deny hearing the case in full court. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28111773/ But, in full fact, the Supreme Court did meet in full conference on this case and did consider it, and thus did read the plaintiff's charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Benjamin (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I must correct myself above. The Supreme did NOT dismiss the case. Rather, the Supreme Court denied the Stay. The case is pending. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Benjamin (talk • contribs) 06:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

U.S. Constitution Online

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

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. 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 U.S.C. § 1402), Alaska (8 U.S.C. § 1404), Hawaii (8 U.S.C. § 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 U.S.C. § 1406), and Guam (8 U.S.C. § 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 U.S.C. § 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.69.105 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

8 U.S.C. § 1401 - 8 U.S.C. § 1402 - 8 U.S.C. § 1403 - 8 U.S.C. § 1404 - 8 U.S.C. § 1405 - 8 U.S.C. § 1406 - 8 U.S.C. § 1407 - 8 U.S.C. § 1408 - 8 U.S.C. § 1409 -

Natural born citizens, forgetting about presidential eligiblity

This page seems to be dominated by people who want there to be a dispute and controversy, and the dispute is sought in many obscure corners of the law. But just consider a simple case that probably occurs thousands of times a year. Given that natural born is not defined in the Constitution nor does it come from common law, etc., still: If a pregnant American woman with a U.S. domicile is travelling abroad and has a child in a foreign country and then returns to the U.S. with the child, what steps does her child have to go through to "become" an American citizen? If the answer is, no particular steps, the child is considered a U.S. citizen, then it's case closed, that child is a natural born citizen. If the child needs to become a U.S. citizen through something more, such as an oath, OK, maybe there is an issue. Anybody know the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.152.245 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Well check this:

(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;

(d) a person born outside of the 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;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

In my opinion the section C apply in the case that you are describing. The child is a Natural born citizen.--Seablade (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Check this article: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

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.

There are some people (I'm not one of them, please note, but I acknowledge that they exist) who insist that only a person born on US soil (i.e., a citizen via jus soli) can possibly be a natural-born citizen — in large part because the Constitution speaks only of jus soli citizenship (14th Amendment) and about Congress's power to establish a "uniform rule of naturalization" (Article I, Section 8). Under this theory, any sort of citizenship established by an act of Congress would be, by definition, "naturalization" under Congress's Article I, Section 8 authority — even jus sanguinis citizenship (i.e., by birth abroad to an American parent or parents). Citations to statutes saying that those born abroad of American parentage are "citizens at birth", or defining "naturalization" as meaning the conferral of citizenship after birth, are deemed irrelevant by those holding this view, since (as they point out) the meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed or constrained by acts of Congress. Adherents of this "jus soli only" theory of natural-born citizenship are unlikely to be swayed by anything short of a clear and unambiguous ruling by the Supreme Court (and maybe not even that!), or else by an amendment to the Constitution. On the other hand, the lack of any such Supreme Court judgment or constitutional amendment means that the "jus soli only" theory remains just one point of view, and not the one and only settled and indisputable position on the subject. Richwales (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, guys, stay with me to see the point. Citizens come in two flavors, naturalized citizen or natural born citizen, those are the only choices. Forget about presidential eligibility, that confuses people. John McCain is not a naturalized citizen, so if he is a citizen, he must be the other type: natural born. It's where the word naturalized comes from, from the other choice, natural born. To say that he is not eligible to be president is to say that he is not a citizen (false) or that he was naturalized (false). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.152.245 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First, please remember that when you post a comment on a talk page, it's considered proper form to sign your comment by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

I personally agree with what you've said. However, it doesn't settle the matter because there are some people who do not accept this definition of "natural-born". Although "natural-born" appears to have been an accepted term of art in British legal history, it is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, and some people refuse to accept any source outside the Constitution as definitive for interpreting the Constitution. (Yes, I agree that that line of reasoning eventually leads to madness, but whatever.)

Go back through this talk page and you'll see some of the arguments that have been raised along these lines. You will probably conclude that these arguments make no sense and have no legal basis, but they are being made. Until McCain lost, there were quite a few people who were mightily fighting his eligibility because they could not accept that anyone born outside the territorial bounds of the US could possibly be "natural born". Richwales (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this is a tricky question, an interesting one, and one that intrigues people. However, stepping back from it, the amount of verbiage in your comment compared to the percentage you devote to the intricacy of the argument itself means that you have served to bury the interesting part in the ocean of words that go nowhere on this page. Please, do the argument that you claim to accept the favor of deleting your and my this response. Somebody coming to this page to read should not have to read a bunch of off-the-main-point paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.152.245 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to delete existing discussions on this subject from this talk page. I stand by what I wrote here and am not going to delete it myself. It is certainly legitimate for people to discuss how (if at all) the various controversies over the meaning of "natural-born citizen" should be dealt with in the article, and/or to rewrite or remove material in the article that may not belong there. I'm not prepared to do major surgery on this article, but perhaps others will want to, subject (of course) to consensus. Richwales (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama article probation applies here too?

I propose that the probation currently in effect on the Barack Obama article "and related articles and pages" should be deemed to apply to the Natural-born citizen article as well.

We are continuing to see repeated POV edits here, alleging that Obama is not in fact a natural-born citizen, or that he lost his US citizenship as a child. For example, Obama has been added / deleted / re-added / re-deleted several times in the sections on "Presidential candidates born outside the US" and "Prominent citizens currently ineligible to hold the Presidency". These edits seem, in my view, to overlook (or consciously reject) the difference between an allegation and an established fact, or between a legal brief and a court judgment. Some of these edits imply that there is a pervasive conspiracy to suppress the truth about the matter. This sort of thing violates WP:FRINGE, as I understand it, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

I see no reason not to mention the issue of Obama's eligibility if there is a genuine case that is being actively considered by the courts. So far, however, all I'm aware of are lawsuits which have been summarily dismissed for lack of standing and/or unlikelihood of success on the merits. Even the apparent willingness by one or two Supreme Court justices to consider some of these suits doesn't seem, to me, to rise anywhere near the necessary threshold of significance in an NPOV context.

Unless someone can come up with something solidly verifiable along these lines, I would suggest that this sort of material should be recognized as being disruptive and be placed firmly off limits in this article. Comments? Richwales (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The probation idea is good, as the disruption will continue until he's inaugurated, and possibly even after. There is no issue of Obama's eligibility, it's a fantasy being promoted by conspiracy-theory types who are so far out of it that even Rush Limbaugh would laugh at them. The court is presumably compelled to acknowledge these groundless cases in some way, but unless something actually happens there is no reason to give undue weight (or any weight) to this nonsense. Keep in mind that this is America, the most litigious country in the world, where anyone can take anything to court whether it has any merit or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment there is NO issue whatsoever with Obama's eligibility. There are two cases before the SCOTUS — (a) Donofrio v. Wells and (b) Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz —, which have merit and standing, but it's completely unclear if they will be scheduled for hearing. If they are dismissed, they will have no place here, unless the SCOTUS writes an important commentary. If they're allowed, we have to wait for the SCOTUS verdict. All the rest of the cases, especially those about the birth certificate (Berg et al.), are fringe BS. —85.179.128.122 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am amused by the suggestion that Obama must be totally sequestered from this article while people who FAILED in their candidacy do get mentioned. What is more remarkable in regards to this article... persons who managed to actually win the selection of electors election (commonly known as the popular vote) or those who lost it?.

The Donofrio case against the Sec of State of NJ that is now being considered by the Supreme Court is very simple, yet is contaminated by the issues surrounding other controversies (like Berg's case and Birth Certificates and Certificates of Live Birth). Donofrio's case does not depend on Obama's documentation , or even place of birth. Instead Donofrio contends that "Natural Born Citizen" means born in the USA of Two US Citizen Parents (either Naturalized or Natural Born). That Obama's father is not a US Citizen is not in dispute.

Congress passed a Bill regarding Natural Born Citizenship only once.. in 1790.. and in 1795 they removed "Natural Born". So Congress has explicitly distinguished between the Presidentail Requirement of Natural Born and basic Citizenship itself.

According to the Federal State Dept:

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

This tells me that the Nationality of the Father was a critical matter in determining Natural Bornness. And so a child born in the US would be an AMendment XIV Citizen without a doubt.but he is born into a family of divided loyalities.. his mother to Karl Marx (Just joking) and his Father to Kenya/Britian.

In fact Donofrio has just annouced that CHESTER ARTHUR who was suspected of being born overseas was our first fraud of a President. Not because he was born overseas (he wasn't) but because his father was not a US Citizen at the time of his US birth... a fact that he did everything to conceal. Why? Because if pepole knew the truth..he was born of a Foreign National father, he would not be able to run for VP. I'll stop here. I'm not a laywer...

So my point is... no matter what happens with Obama. he definately warrants at least a little sentence. (My laptop lacks a spell checker and it's 4AM please forgive typing errors) VP1974 (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The case itself is not "being considered" by the High Court. What's being considered is whether to consider the case. Once that process reaches its conclusion, it could be worth mentioning here; and the similar question raised about John McCain, which was settled, could also be moved here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I know the decision to hear the case hasnt been decided. I figured people keep up with the news and know what I meant. VP1974 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, that 1790 law, if it actually applied to only the father, and were actually invoked in the Obama situation, would almost certainly be struck down as being sex-discriminatory, as well as being illogical, since the mother of a child is typically evident while the true father of a child might or might not be (going by the eminently logical Jewish approach, in which a child is only born Jewish if the mother is also Jewish, regardless of what the father is). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The 1790 law doesn't apply. It merely informs people trying to deteremine what Natural Born Citizen meant at the time it was written. And in what way American and British (common and statutary) law diverged. VP1974 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that "natural born" must mean someone with citizenship both via jus soli and jus sanguinis (via both parents, no less!) is, IMO, an utterly fanciful theory fashioned from whole cloth (or out of thin air), with (again IMO) not a shred of legal/historical basis. The term "natural born" was a well-understood term of art in 18th-century British law — meaning someone who was born "natural" (i.e., with citizenship from the moment of birth) — or, stated otherwise, someone who didn't need to be naturalized because he/she was natural born. The 1790 law does not suggest that the early Congress thought US citizenship should be only by descent (jus sanguinis); it simply meant to clarify that citizenship could be via jus sanguinis in addition to arising via the already well-accepted British concept of citizenship by birthplace (jus soli). Any thought at all that US citizenship by birth always required descent, even in the case of someone born on US soil, was put to rest after the Wong Kim Ark ruling of 1898 (and yes, I know some fans of "federalist blogs" denounce or even reject Wong Kim Ark, but it's the law of the land until/unless overruled by a later Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment). So I'll be utterly amazed if Donofrio's lawsuit, or anything like it, ends up being accepted for review by the Supreme Court. In any case, though, I imagine we'll find out for sure on Monday. Richwales (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's all based on a fantasy that Obama will be rejected and that the electors will vote Hillary Clinton into office. Or John McCain, for those who think the electors would somehow decide to switch their own party affiliations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, you and I (and most of the US population) interprets "natural-born" in the canonical way, and therefore Obama clearly qualifies as a natural-born citizen, whether or not he was born in Hawaii or elsewhere (and personally the "evidence" that he was not born in Hawaii is virtually nonexistent). But the fact is, it's a legitimate question that has received airtime on big media networks (like NBC), at least a mention on many political blogs on both sides of the spectrum, etc. This discussion reminds me a lot of talk pages on Conservapedia - you make an argument which has some legitimate basis (the "controversy" over Obama's citizenship is groundless and overblown), but the underlying reason for making this argument is simply personal bias. The guiding force behind whether or not we should include this anecdote is "notability" - has this controversy been featured in reliable third party etc. etc. sources? I think yes, and honestly - Wikipedia reminding me of Conservapedia is not something I wish to happen often. ugen64 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The decision here not to post the details of the current civil action being pursued needs to be modified in my opinion. The posting of McCain's questionable status and not Obama's is sending a message that this article is biased. The fact is there is a question of his eligibility before the courts and omitting the facts or links to the information gives the reader the impression that wikipedia is politically affiliated. The website (http://www.obamacrimes.com/) gives all the details of the current case and I think the domain name is offending people here causing it to be deleted. I think the shock value is more humorous considering Obama has committed no crime, but that does not mean wikipedia should be dismissing them before the court has. Reading the petition for injunction (http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/057_1%20US%20Supreme%20Court%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%2010_30_08.pdf) it sounds serious and is not a frivolous allegation from the petitioner's POV. At the same time, it is important to show the Obama side and the unbiased evidence or proof they have submitted such as his birth records or statements etc. The point is there is a real issue of fact being decided at the Supreme Court and this is not within the category of tabloid news. Wikipedia is not the trier of fact and should not remove or delete articles like this and keep another political opponent's on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed it, (which can happen if one gets their news from crackpot smear blogs instead of actual news sources), the Supreme Court refused it without comment. If you're seriously suggesting that we use the above website as a reference for anything, you should probably read up on what constitutes a reliable source on wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't bother to check the links I provided Loonymonkey, that was not the case that was dismissed by the Supreme Court without comment this week. The case you are referring to is the Leo Donofrio New Jersey case. The case I referenced was Philip Berg's from Pennsylvania. I suggest you click on the links and do a little more research before making incorrect comments here. However, this reaction just adds more merit to the idea that some editors here are not interested in gathering all the information prior to writing their sections here. If you are interested in listening to what this Mr. Berg is claiming, you can refer to page 9 of 40 on the Petition for Injunction. I am not interested in whether this injunction succeeds or fails, but I am simply pointing to the fact that there is a McCain section and not an Obama one. Both appear to be legitimate questions of natural born citizenship for each person. This section should be added to the article to maintain a neutral POV to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading some crackpot's blog is not exactly what I would call "research." Again, please read WP:RS. There is no point in even beginning a discussion until reliable sources are on the table. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, reading crackpot sites and blogs is not reliable or complete research. But then again, it is a person's opinion on what they consider is a reliable source. I'm not saying this guy is reliable, but it would be careless for me not to hear what the crazys have to say first before I dismiss it. I don't want to keep posting links lest I be considered furthering the conspiracy myself (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html) but my interest is keeping things neutral. I think this birth conspiracy nonsense will come to an end in a matter days now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to delete section on "Prominent Elected Officials ... ineligible to hold the Presidency"

This section is inherently subjective and suffers from recentism. It has also proven to be liable to vandalism and should be deleted. Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Properly handled, this sort of material can be informative, and readers will be genuinely interested in it. Yes, this section may be liable to vandalism, but I don't see that argument as particularly compelling, because the rest of the article has also attracted original research and fringe theories regarding the meaning of "natural born". Perhaps the section should be restricted to include — with appropriate sources required — only people who (but for being naturalized) would have been in the official line of succession to the Presidency (such as Kissinger and Albright); naturalized people who have been prominently mentioned in the mainstream media as potential candidates for President in connection with discussion of proposed constitutional amendments (such as Schwarzenegger, Lantos, and Granholm); and perhaps also anyone who has actually tried to run for President but was thrown off the ballot by legal action in some state(s) because he/she was naturalized (if any such people exist). Richwales (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. There's really no point to the section. A better version would be something along these lines, which I've written from memory but which I'm sure could be properly sourced: "There have been occasional calls for the amendment of this provision of the Constitution, for example to provide that anyone would be eligible after being a citizen for 35 years. Such proposals drew increased attention with the rise to political prominence of Arnold Schwarzenegger, an Austrian-born movie star who was elected Governor of California in 2003. Some supporters of the change, not wishing it to be seen solely as a vehicle for Schwarzenegger (a Republican), pointed out that it would also include Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic Governor of Michigan, who was born in Canada." That's what readers need to know; they don't need a comprehensive list of everyone from 2008 forward who served in Congress, the Cabinet, or as a Governor without being a natural-born citizen. (For that matter, why only those from 2008 forward? Why not include John Peter Altgeld, etc.? A truly comprehensive list would be much longer but equally pointless.) JamesMLane t c 04:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Move this material to a separate article, linked from this one.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The issue of cabinet officers who are ineligible to succeed the president is handled in United States presidential line of succession. As for the rest, it's a random collection of individuals. The Schwarzenegger issue might be mentioned in the text due to proposals to change the U.S. Constitution but even that is only tangentially related to the topic of this article, which is not "eligibility for U.S. President". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Case law

Because of events related to the 2008 U.S. presidential election there has been widespread blogging on the issue of natural born citizenship and online discussion of legal precedents like these. This has resulted in novel interpretations and subsequent edits of this article. I have removed one such edit. The replacement entry I wrote is constructed primarily out of text quoted from the Supreme Court opinion and IMO aligns more with accepted interpretation of the decision in this particular case as it applies to this article on Natural-Born Citizenship. I have edited the text for Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) as follows:

"The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States'."

Bluespaceoddity2 (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Goldwater

The article clearly stated that Arizona was US territory before becoming a US state. Therefore anyone born in Arizona (i.e. on US territory) and being subject to US jurisdiction was a natural born citizen. Goldwater had no place there. Therefore deleted. —85.179.128.122 (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually my understand is that this was a matter of some confusion and dispute. And even for some previous presidents who had been born in similar circumstances. According to information I have, it was not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New information about President Chester Arthur

The lawyer of the case the Supreme Court might take has released research stating that Arthur lied about the circumstances of his father because at the time of Chester's birth,his father was not a citizen. Thus leaving him ineligible for Vice President.

Other people during his time had alledged that Chester was actually born overseas but he was not. His refutation of that falsehood deflected scrunity of his father, who he had lied about in order to have people believe that his father was a US Citizen when Chester was born.

Why would he do that if his father's nationality didn't matter? He did it because his father's nationality was critical.

Donofrio writes , in part at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

Is this the twilight zone?

William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Chester Arthur lied about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.

And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means.

Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.

And it’s no precedent to follow.

We shall see. VP1974 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

More from the fantasy world of those who think that somehow they can use the Supreme Court to steal another Presidential election. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could say that there's a bias concerning the argued implications for this year's campaign, but the facts are the facts: It's clear now that Chester Arthur's father William Arthur was naturalized a US citizen on August 31, 1843, as you can see on a copy of the original document here. Since Chester Arthur was born in 1829 or—as he claimed for some reason (one biographer said "vanity")—in 1830, it's absolutely safe to say that Arthur was born as the son of a US citizen (mother) and a non-US citizen (Irish father). Nobody seems to have realized this when he ran for (Vice-)President, because everyone was preoccupied with the unfounded, but popular rumors that he was born abroad. But in any case he was born on US soil, so an inclusion of Chester Arthur in the paragraph on born abroad is irrelevant, because all there was to it were rumors. But I suggest an alternative paragraph with Presidential candidates and Presidents born as the sons of a non-US parent: These should be Arthur and Obama. In any case, the parallels between the two are quite eerie. —85.179.138.99 (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If the court makes a ruling, it could be worth mentioning somewhere. Any bets on the court deciding that Arthur is no longer a President? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

;D The court will probably not decide to hear the case. A New York Times reporter has apparently received word from sources inside the SCOTUS that the case has been dismissed on Friday based on the lack of standing. Someone also wrote that this was also mentioned on CSPAN. A statement will be issued tomorrow. Furthermore, Arthur's case is (a) not part of the writ, and (b) not applicable as precedent, because Arthur's birth to a non-US citizen father remained unknown—maybe Arthur even tried to conceal it—, while Obama has openly stated on his website that he had been a British-US dual citizen at birth. In any case, Arthur is a fait accompli and will for all eternity remain President, whether legitimate or not. The latter is not for me to decide, but it's a great new discovery that he was actually born to a non-US citizen father. The date on his father's naturalization record clearly proves it. So it's irrelevant what the court decides. As a historical fact it should be included. —85.179.138.99 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be included, if consensus determines it's appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Does it mean that you would rank whatever WP consensus there might be as something higher and more valuable than a historical reality, even if the consensus ignored that reality? (Just wondering.) —85.179.138.99 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not every "historical reality" fits wikipedia. It has to be both verifiable and notable. If I got a parking ticket yesterday, that's a "historical reality", but that doesn't make it notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:) Okay, agreed. In Arthur's case I see notability (biographical information, especially when considering those rumors about his citizenship) and verifiability (certificate of naturalization). How the facts are to be interpreted in light of his actions, I'll leave to the experts. —85.179.138.99 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[Irrelevant comments about an insignificant issue removed.] Bluespaceoddity2 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correcting statements no one has made. No one is suggesting that Arthur concealed the birth place of his father. Donfrio suggests that what he did do was ensure no one would suspect that his father was not yet a citizen at the time of Arthur's birth. The father was born in Ireland in 1796. He moved to Canada in 1818-19. His US-born wife elopes with him in 1821. He moved to the US between 1822 - 1824. The son was born on 5 Oct 1829. The father was naturalized on 31 Aug 1843. Where you quote Arthur saying his dad was from Ireland you should have kept quoting: "“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”" This is a lie. He did not come to the US at 18.. he was well in his 20s and he was already married before he moved to the US. He also told other lies that gave the impression that his dad was in the US long enough to become a citizen before Chester's birth. There is no "Conspiracy Yarn." The factual info I asserted here comes from the link at the top of this section. You can find the Documentation there. VP1974 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Arthur made no statement inconsistent with the fact that his father was not a citizen when Chester Arthur was born. Whether he lied (and I cannot think why he would have) or just didn't know the accurate details is irrelevant because he never said his father was a citizen, nor said anything that would lead anyone to infer that he was a citizen. Arthur and his father were estranged and Arthur may well not have even known when his father naturalized. In any case, based on Lynch v. Clarke, Arthur would have reasonably concluded that he was eligible in either case, and IMO demolishes the whole lie/cover-up theory.Kevin (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it fair to say that a modern-day smear campaign is being waged against Chester A. Arthur. Aurthur, a New Yorker, may reasonably have known of the often cited case (including citation by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) of Lynch v. Clarke (New York 1884) which said "The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not." . See also Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858).Kevin (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I intend to delete the text on Chester Arthur: "his natural born citizenship status at birth is unclear, because he was born before the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment that provided any person born on United States territory and subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a U.S. citizen, and because he held at least Irish citizenship jus sanguinis through his father" unless someone supports this assertion with a reference. I point to the citation from Lynch v. Clarke above as ample justification that the text to be removed is false on its face.Kevin (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama

There is no controversy about the fact that President-Elect Obama had a father who was never a U.S. citizen. In my opinion, this absolutely does not jeopardize Obama's eligibility to be President. However, the fact remains that, at the time the Constitution was written, the prevailing sexist opinion was expressed by Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

I think it's fairly clear that the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the previous prevailing view expressed by Vattel. Either the Citizenship Clause overturned it, or the Equal Protection Clause overturned it. But in any event, I think Obama ought to be added to our list, after McCain. Obama may be the first U.S. president ever born with dual citizenship. Any one else have an opinion about it?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Obama was born in the US, and at least one of his parents was a US citizen, there is no reason to add him to the list. He does not satisfy either criterion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Vattel, he would "follow the condition" of his father. Sexist? Yes. Archaic? Yes. But still, it's pertinent. Obama would be the first president born with dual citizenship. See the discussion of Obama in the Michigan Law Review: Spiro, Peter. “McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method”, Michigan Law Review, Volume 107, page 208 (2008).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How is what one editor describes as the prevailing view of citizenship in the 18th century pertinent to whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in the 21st century? It'd make more sense, rather than discussing his father's citizenship, to discuss the fact that in the 18th century people of African heritage were not considered citizens at all, regardless of where they or their parents were born. Under modern law, in place for over a hundred years, there is no question that Obama is a natural-born citizen. The laws of two hundred years ago were quite different in many respects. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The prevailing view of citizenship in the 18th century is pertinent today for people who interpret the Constitution in a particular way. Additionally, the list of presidential candidates in the article is not a list of candidates who were ineligible when they ran, much less a list of candidates who would be ineligible today.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What was the prevailing view in the 18th century about the citizenship of African Americans born in Hawaii, or even Virginia? What is the "particular way" of viewing the Constitution which makes the 18th century view (pre-14th Amendment) applicable to the 21st century? While a general discussion of how parentage affects citizenship is relevant to this article, it has nothing to do with Obama and the presidency. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave this article as-is for now. I don't think this is a good time to have this discussion. After Obama is securely sworn into office, I think everyone (including you and me) will be a bit more relaxed and less skeptical of motives.

The 14th Amendment arguably amended the meaning of the original Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen Clause." For example, the Equal Protection Clause obviously required that the Natural Born Citizen Clause must not be used in a racially discriminatory manner (and possibly likewise for a gender-discriminatory manner). At the same time, many of the framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly said that they did not intend to automatically give birthright citizenship to children of foreigners. It's all in the dissent by Justice John Marshall Harlan in the leading case (Wong Kim Ark). Look, I'm not saying that Harlan's dissent is controlling today, or that stuff congressmen and senators said in 1866 overrides the actual language of the 14th Amendment. The meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment is still a subject of immense dispute today (especially as regards so-called anchor babies), and even if it were not in dispute I still feel that the undisputed birth of President-Elect Obama as a "dual citizen" is notable for this article. No president has ever been born with dual citizenship, AFAIK, and it's notable. That's all. Doesn't mean I'm trying to undermine Obama, or criticize him, or anything like that. I was for McCain, but I'll be for my President too. Period.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on dual citizen, which is mostly unrelated to being a "natural-born citizen". For example, U.S. citizens of Irish heritage are eligible to apply for Irish citizenship, making them dual citizens. Likewise for people of Japanese descent. Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, and he was born on U.S. soil, so he is a natural-born citizen under any possible construction of the 14th Amendment. Nothing about Obama's citizenship seems relevant to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether people can apply for dual citizenship is not relevant to this article. Obama had dual citizenship at birth, which is very different from applying long after birth. I agree with you 1000000% that it is frivolous to argue that Obama's dual citizenship at birth means he is not a Natural-Born Citizen. This article is not contending that Barry Goldwater was not a natural born citizen, or that George Romney was not a natural born citizen. We can mention Obama without suggesting that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. The simple fact remains that Obama would not be a Natural Born Citizen under the Slaughterhouse decision quoted in the present article, or under the dissenting opinion of Harlan in Wong Kim Ark that's quoted in this article. And there's also been a minor kerfuffle about Obama's dual citizenship at birth, it's gone to the Supreme Court twice (in the Denofrio and Wrotnowski cases), and it's mentioned a billion times in reliable sources. It's fringy, but notable.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is only a guess but given that George Washington was born prior to US independence in what would then have been a British dominion, he was a British subject by birth. I'm pretty it wasn't possible to renounce being a subject at the time no he was a dual national when he became president. So too were John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.

Obama was born in the United States and is undeniably a Natural-Born Citizen. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a grandfather clause in the Natural Born Citizen Clause that covered those first several presidents. And I agree with you that Obama is undeniably a Natural-Born Citizen. Have I said otherwise? I also believe that Barry Goldwater and George Romney and John McCain have undeniably been Natural Born Citizens. But there are reasonable people who disagree, there is conflicting hstorical evidence about the Constitution's meaning on this point, and the information we have is incomplete.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

President Chester A. Arthur's father was a British Citizen when Chester was born. Obama is the 2nd president born with dual citizenship.74.249.43.117 Kevin (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of facts is being engaged in within this article about "natural born citizenship" and the basic facts as to why Obama's has been challenged. No factual information as to the reason Obama's natural born citizenship is being allowed into the paragraph about the fact that Obama's natural born citizenship has been challenged. The following lines have been repeated deleted, "Various charges have been made in the last year that he is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. including disputes as to his actual location of birth and that he is not a natural born citizen since his father was not a citizen. He was born to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Kenya who was not a U.S. citizen." There is nothing factually inaccurate in those lines and they are not disputed by Obama himself or his campaign. They are the basis for most of the charges that his is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. To only allow Obama's campaign's responses to some charges, i.e., the birth certificate issue, as being the only or main reason his name rightfully is listed here with Presidents and Presidential candidates who have had their natural born citizenship status challenged is pure one-sided censorship. Mtngoat63 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not censorship for us to keep articles on topic. This article is to explain the concept and Constitutional requirement of "natural-born citizen". You're propounding the theory that, in 1961, a particular American college student flew from Hawaii to Kenya, gave birth there, brought the infant back to Hawaii, and registered the birth in Hawaii. Whether this event occurred or not doesn't shed much light on the general Constitutional issue. The facts concerning this one particular birth belong in the more specific article about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Those facts belong in this article only to the extent that they help the reader understand the general concept, which for the most part they don't. The reader who wants to know more about President-Elect Obama's circumstances can follow the wikilink to that article. JamesMLane t c 22:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum. I've rewritten the Obama paragraph to try to fit it better to the entire article. From the point of view of understanding "natural-born citizen", whether Ann Dunham gave birth in Kenya is unimportant. What's really added in the Obama case is Donofrio's argument that Obama was a citizen at birth but nevertheless wasn't a natural-born citizen, so we should mention that. Also, because the controversy is ongoing (at least in the sense that Berg, Keyes, and other litigants continue to tilt at this windmill), we should note its current status (that so far the challenges have failed). JamesMLane t c 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Obama may be the first U.S. president ever born with dual citizenship." I very much doubt this. Chester A. Arthur's father was an Irish subject when Chester was born. I'm told that one can claim Irish citizenship from a grandparent.Kevin (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note, also, that Spiro Agnew (Nixon's VP, for those who might be too young to remember) had a Greek immigrant father, and may very possibly have been considered a Greek citizen/subject under Greek law, regardless of whether Agnew himself ever thought of himself as such. Similarly, Michael Dukakis (the 1988 Democratic Presidential nominee) was born of Greek immigrant parents. I don't recall even the small minority who put forth ultra-strict definitions of "natural born" objecting to either of these men's eligibility at the time. Basing presidential eligibility on dual citizenship could be tricky at best, and hazardous at worst, given that other countries can declare someone to be one of their citizens based on their own laws (!), and without any care or regard for US law. Richwales (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

See also section

Can we remove the Obama link? This seems unneeded per undue weight. --Tom 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama is being discussed in the previous talk page section, immediately above.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that link. Clearly it was misplaced, since there is no doubt about Obama's status as a natural-born citizen. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't bother arguing with you since you were obviously present at Sen. Obama's birth or have seen his original birth certificate. I believe it is easier to argue that there is no question about Obama's citizenship in order to avoid open a can of worms that would follow with all the arguments for and against the issue. Instead of declaring a bold statement like "there is no doubt about Obama's status" I think it is wiser to say, "On Dec. 12 the Supreme Court will decide on the injunction, Dec. 15 the electoral college will submit their votes for President-elect Obama, and unless there is a deviation from the first two, on Jan. 20th Obama will officially take office as President of the United States." If there is a change in these course of events, then a reasonable doubt is established. However, I stand by my original opinion that if there is a McCain section on his citizenship, it is only fair and neutral to include Obama's. Otherwise, delete McCain's and end this banter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

McCain was not born in the USA, but Obama was. That is why McCain's natural born status is notable, and Obama's is not. Case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Simon, the conspiracy theorists argue Obama was not born in the USA, which makes Obama's natural born status also notable. It is your choice to accept the facts as is, but the controversy should not be omitted from the wikipedia page, especially when it is discussed elsewhere on wikipedia. 1 crazy lawsuit is easy to dismiss, but 4 or 5 of them going on makes this appear unsettled. I wish someone would just from his campaign or family could end the lawsuits and discussion finally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Just a reminder, for those who may not be aware, that Obama-related issues are being covered in a separate article at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Coverage of that issue probably constitutes undue weight in this article, so editors interested in this issue should look at the specifically Obama-related article. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

I've just removed these comments from the area relating to Barack Obama and the challenge of his presidency, as it posts rumor as if it is fact, while some of it is outright false and has been proven as such.

His campaign released a certificate of live birth, which was subsequently proven to be a forgery. (Supposedly proven to be a forgery by biased right wing websites who supposedly hired experts. Those "experts" claim to refute the authenticity of a document using a compressed JPG image, not the original document or a high resolution original image. It is not possible to authoritatively authenticate an image without the high resolution original, and it is arguably impossible to authenticate a document without the original paper copy of said document. The JPG they've obtained from Obama's website is nothing but a reduced copy of a higher resolution image, and with the reduction comes changes in formatting that can deteriorate the image, consistent with the "issues" that the "experts" claim shows that this was a digital forgery. This is not the only picture of this birth certificate either, as there have been others posted by Factcheck. Further, the State of Hawaii has stated that they hold the original birth certificate, in an effort to settle these rumors. This statement insinuates that the copy Obama holds is also certified authentic. And it's unlikely that the state would put itself on the line to claim this if the document was forged or altered and the information on the online images of Obama's birth certificate were not correct.)

He refuses to release his vault copy. (Speculation. It could also be argued that he refuses to give conspiracy theorists filing frivolous lawsuits the time of day for an issue that those with standing - GOP, McCain, Clinton - have no interest in pursuing, arguably because they know there is no truth to these rumors and thus they have no case.)

His grand-mother has stated on record that she was at this birth in Kenya. (Rumor. The claims that his grandmother stated this revolve around an interview with her where she spoke in her native language - one of hundreds of dialects in Kenya. Biased right wing websites claim she is saying that Obama was born in Kenya. Other interpreters have claimed that what she is saying is actually "Barack is a son of this village" or a "decendent of this village" not actually that he was physically born there.)

Furthermore, he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and raised as an Indonesian citizen. (Rumor. First of all, his years of greatest intellectual development were spent in Hawaii with his grandparents from the age of 10 until he went to college, so he was raised as an American by American grandparents in Hawaii. There is no proof of the adoption, and even if he were adopted, it has no effect on his status as a natural born citizen. Citizenship must be renounced deliberately and voluntarily. Obtaining citizenship in a country that is not an enemy combatant of the US is not an automatically expatriating act. And a 6-year-old child can neither deliberately nor voluntarily expatriate.)

Barak Obama traveled to Pakistan on a passport that has not been identified as US, possibly Indonesian. (Rumor. This is based in the false assumption that US citizens were banned from Pakistan in the early 80's. This is not true, cannot be found on any reputable website, and like most of what is written here, has only propagated among the many right wing websites that pass these rumors between each other.)

Barak has refused to release his college records. (What is the relevance of this to the topic of natural born citizenship? A reference to any information indicating that he refused to release these records would be very helpful, as I have seen no evidence that it was ever requested or denied. And additionally, can we show precedent where this is a standard practice of prior candidates, or that anyone else in the 2008 election released their college records?)

Some suggest that Barak Obama registered as a foreign (Indonesian) student and received financial aid to attend US universities. (More rumor that is connected to the Lolo adoption rumors posted on right wing websites.)

Seriously, if you want to post information about the lawsuits that have been dismissed without merit, post fact that is printed in a reputable source. State that Berg claims ____. Or Donofrio claims _____. But at least also try to be unbiased about your assessment and offer the opposing argument. Posting garbage like "His campaign released a certificate of live birth, which was subsequently proven to be a forgery" is just dishonest. Garbage that is passed around among the many right wing blogs is not fact and only serves the purpose of confusing the casual reader.

If it were fact, in the opinion of this writer and most people in this country, there would be cases in court by people who actually have standing and something to gain from this - the GOP, the DNC, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. It is also arguable that they would have brought this information up long before the election, and certainly before the Electoral College met today, Dec 15, 2008. --Wri1975 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was with you up until the last paragraph where you argue standing and the timing of these lawsuits. I believe this discussion has gotten out of hand over what should be a simple statement of facts. I feel the Obama section should exist only because McCain has a section questioning his birth status. There seems to be more of a fight here to keep Obama off the wiki page but not McCain's, and that gives an appearance of bias.

You state that only political party groups or the losing candidates have standing, but that is not clearly described under the law. You are correct, in my opinion and according to most court rulings, that ordinary citizens such as Berg and Donofrio, Wrotnowski, et al. do not have standing to challenge the constitutional requirements of a presidential candidate. But it is also unclear if a presidential candidate could. McCain and Clinton are lucky since they are U.S. Senators so they may have standing in that regard, but Alan Keyes has not held political office but was also a presidential candidate but I do not believe the courts would find he has standing either.

Whether or not this is fact or fiction, there is very little reason for anyone in Congress to bring a case. Clinton or the DNC would be committing political suicide, it is just nonsense to suggest anyone in the democratic party would risk their lives and future ambitions over this even if they knew 100% it was true. Everyone would be hurt and nobody would benefit in that hypothetical.

As to the timing of the lawsuits, in civil procedure there is something known as the ripeness doctrine of justiciability, which basically means a court cannot rule on a lawsuit if claim is not "ripe" for adjudication. A challenge to Obama or McCain's eligibility would not be ready until it is certain a person is to become President. The courts will not rule on something that "might" happen in the future because that would be speculating the law and the courts would be wasting time on an issue they may never occur. The challenges, if they were to ever occur, would need to be brought up now and only now. The timing of the lawsuits, while appearing to be vindictive and the result of right-wing propaganda (and they still may be just that) are actually legally proper.

One final comment about your comments, in the beginning you stated some of the points made were proven to be outright false, but you really don't say that when responding to each point. I see words like rumor and speculation, but nothing that clearly says this is outright false and here is the proof or evidence. Just pointing out that if you are going to make a bold claim to the reader, you should make sure your post follows that premise. Again, I'd like to state my only interest here is for a neutral POV article and I think the new section "Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned" is correcting that issue finally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Was protection appropriate?

On the disputed subject of how to treat the specific example of Obama's birth, the version now protected is the one I wrote. Nevertheless, I believe that the protection was ill-advised. There has been serious discussion on this page about the different alternatives. The edit warring hadn't become a major problem. I suggest that protection be lifted.

Given the raft of argument over on Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories, some kind of protection I would expect.Kevin (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the protection implies that the language I wrote is the wrong version, an aspersion I resent.  :) JamesMLane t c 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your version explains the situation in good detail. Protection is fine for now. There's nothing new to add to the article, and this will become a moot issue once Obama's Presidency becomes reality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be moot. Some of the litigants and their supporters (on websites like Free Republic) have vowed to pursue the argument with regard to all of Obama's actions as President. In the normal course of events, there will be lawsuits or administrative proceedings involving regulations promulgated by Obama appointees in the agencies. There will be federal criminal trials presided over by Obama-appointed judges. Of the many people who'll be involved in such matters, a small percentage (notably those who have no other argument to make) will contend that Obama isn't really President.

More to the point, a reference to the issues raised concerning the various candidates and Presidents is helpful to the reader in illuminating the concept of "natural-born citizen". The disputes about the likes of Chester A. Arthur and Barry Goldwater are certainly moot, but those paragraphs should stay in. Therefore, we'll still have to worry about the Obama wording after January 20. JamesMLane t c 16:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Vice Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned

One of the problems facing the current lawsuits that seem to be trying to make natural-born citizen US+2 (born in the US of 2 US citizen parents), is the precedent of Chester Arthur whose father was British at the time of his birth.

People on both sides in the current lawsuits are looking into vice presidents and whether they are US+2. Charles Curtis comes to mind since his mother was probably not a US Citizen. And how about Spiro Agnew?Kevin (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: retitle the article or globalize it

I'm tempted to add a {{Globalize/U.S.}} tag to this article. Yes, I see the {{dablink}} note at the top of the article, but the topic isn't necessarily U.S.-specific. See, for example, Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Philippines. My suggestion: move this article to [[Natural-born citizen (U.S.)] and replace it with a new article which addresses the topic in a globalized manner and which links at the appropriate point to the U.S.-specific article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer the title "Natural-born citizen of the United States". That's similar to the language in the Constitution, and it doesn't require us to write a new globalized article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. The first time I saw this article, I was surprised the title was so 'bare'. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The move lost the hyphen; was that intentional? Also, check for double redirects, there's likely to be some. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)May

No hyphen in the actual Constitution. Already fixed a double-redirect. Will look for more.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm late to the conversation as the move has already been made, but I agree with Ferrylodge. I'm not sure if the phrase is even used outside of the United States, but we should indicate that this article only refers to it in the context of the U.S. Constitution. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase might not be used by other countries but the basis of that, using different wording as each language has their own (somtimes hard to translate wording) and we should just see it as such (translation into English). My point is, that I would prefer to go back to the original title and make the new one a sub that can stand on his own.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See also an old version of this article [4] and pay attention to the lead sentence.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of the article has always been U.S.-focused, the history should stay here. If someone wants to create a new article that deals with the term in other countries, they can, and copy the back-version Honduras material to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a point here since it might take some time till someone would create a global version (if at all). A suggestion: Leave the old title as a redirect and if a global article emerges go back and make it a sub as I pointed out above. Till then (and this might be forever) I'm fine with the way it is now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with The Magnificent Clean-keeper. The new title is better, and the old title should redirect here until and unless there is sufficient material for another article with global scope. Richwales (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the move and new title was badly thought out. This article is not about Natural born citizens of the United States, much less the Natural born citizen [sic] of the United States (like there's only one???), it is about the Natural born citizen clause in the United States Constitution. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 02:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice handle.  :-) You're right that this article is primarily about a clause in the US Constitution. But not every such article needs to use the word "clause" in the title. For example, see Impeachment in the United States which is primarily about the impeachment clause of the Constitution. And, of course, we are entitled to have an article about the U.S. Congress without specifying in the article title that Congress is a creature of the Constitution. The main point, I think, is that the new title is an improvement over the old title.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment in the United States is a little vague as well, but a least it's grammatically correct. Impeachment is a legal process - we don't have to point this out. A natural-born citizen is a person, so we have to be clear what we're actually talking about US constitutional law and not just a group of people or a certain individual. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 03:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as grammar is concerned, there are lots of Wikipedia article titles that have the same style as this one. For example, see Mother.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it's singular, "Mother" is fine, but "Mother of the United States" would be a bit laughable. I'd prefer to revert to the old title but saving that I think I'll rename it to Natural born citizen clause in the United States Constitution. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would object to such a renaming. I think the current title (Natural born citizen of the United States) is fine. Richwales (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Richwales. The present title seems consistent with many other Wikipedia article titles, such as: Map of the United States, Honorary Citizen of the United States, Acting President of the United States, Declaration of war by the United States, and General of the Army (United States). I could give many other examples. I do not see why using the term "citizen" in the present article title would be better than using the term "citizen of the United States".Ferrylodge (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But the article isn't actually about what the title says its about, it just doesn't make sense. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> I wish we didn't have to get into a monumental battle about every little thing. The article is precisely about what it means to be a natural born citizen of the United States. What do you think it's about?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, if we agree to change "citizen of the United States" in the article title back to "citizen" then could we remove the tag? I'm not saying I endorse that, but is that your position? You said that you would "prefer to revert to the old title" and that would be accomplished by changing "citizen of the United States" to "citizen", right? Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since there's no response, and since there's apparently consensus for the current title, I'll remove the tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Elk v. Wilkins

Twice now, someone has deleted a proper citation to this case without bothering to justify the deletion on the discussion page. It seems to be a very relevant case for the issue presented by this article. What is the justification for trying to exclude it? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your summary of Elk v. Wilkins remains in this Wikipedia article. However, I removed the stuff about Vattel, since Vattel is already covered in the article (and merely citing Vattel does not establish that the Clause is based on his writings). Also removed the stuff you put in the Obama section. That section is long enough already. If you want to add more material like this, please go to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Wong Kim Ark seems much more pertinent to Obama than Elk v. Wilkins.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care if you want to keep the conspiracy stuff out, but I think there is POV pushing by burying Vattel. "The Law of Nations" was cited by Scalia in Heller as a treatise relied upon by the drafters, and it specifically defines what a natural born citizen is. It should be in the discussion of the Constitutional provisions, as it gives insight into what the drafters were most likely thinking. It should not be buried in the discussion of Wong. Tommylotto (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If this were an article on the Second Amendment, then we could say that Scalia has cited Vattel as authority for the meaning of the constitutional provision, but we could not simply say that Vattel is authority for the meaning of the constitutional provision without citing anyone. We would have to cite Scalia, and say in the text that Scalia has relied on Vattel. See what I'm saying? We cannot do WP:Synthesis which is a type of WP:Original research.

A Wikipedia article on the Second Amendment would have to cite some authority (such as Scalia) for using Vattel as a source for the meaning of the constitutional provision. Likewise, we use Wong Kim Ark as such an authority here in this article. We cannot go making assertions without authority.

As for your assertion that Vattel is "buried" in our discussion of Wong Kim Ark, that's obviously not true. This is a short article, so nothing is buried. And even if it were a lengthy article, please note that we have wikilinked Vattel so that he really stands out and will be noticed. In any case, there is absolutely no reason to redundantly cite Vattel in this article, just for emphasis.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are disputing. Are you disputing that Vattel's Law of Nations was an influential treatise to the original drafters? Scalia has cited in connection with the second amendment, and Harlan has cited it specifically in this context on citizenship in Wong. I do not think it is controversial to say that it was influential on the original drafters -- there are at least two Supreme Court Justices that have cited it and one directly on point. So, if you are disputing the work's influence, you are simply wrong. If you dispute where it should be properly discussed, that is a legitimate dispute, however, I still have to disagree. The section on the applicable constitutional provisions is the logical place to discuss original intent, not buried in the section on case law. Furthermore, I think the section on Wong is poorly written and difficult to follow, particularly the reference to Vattel. Frankly, I think that section too is in need of revision. Vattel was not cited or address by the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Vattel is cited in Wong in the dissenting opinion. It deserves to be buried.Kevin (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The main dispute here is about where Vattel should be mentioned in this article. No framer is known to have specifically cited Vattel in connection with this clause. In contrast, Justice Harlan specifically cited Vattel in connection with this clause. So it makes more sense to mention Vattel when discussing Harlan's dissent in Wong Kim Ark. Certainly Vattel should not be mentioned redundantly in this article in both places.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New reference sites

A super web site has been set up by an attorney with case law, AG opinions and more at The "Natural Born Citizenship" Clause (Updated). I commend it to anyone wanting to find material to extend or improve this article. Also new is The Great Mother of All Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages. A. P. Hinman's smear book on Chester A. Arthur, How a British Subject Became President of the United States is now available for the first time on the Internet through a link at obamaconspiracy.org.Kevin (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

None of those sites can be considered reliable sources. Are you actually proposing that we cite some kooky blog called "obamaconspiracy"? --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of those sites provide links to the original law/published law review articles, etc., which are, indeed reliable sources. Kevin did not propose cite either resource but, rather, to sue them as a resource to "find material to extend or improve this article." Tesibria (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, you should actually read through these blogs, and not reject them from the gut. This website e.g. has some unique information, which is not in this WP-article, namely Lynch v. Clarke (1844), a case where it is explicitly stated in the proceedings that a "native born citizen", even if he has alien parents, is eligible for Presidency, because the only law defining "natural born citizen" at the time of the adoption of the constitution, was the common law (therein called "natural born subject"). This is of course just a legal opinion, but it's nevertheless valuable information for this article. There are other opinions of course, e.g. that not the British Common Law has to be seen as the origin of the term, but the Law of Nations. —85.179.129.222 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey's vandalism

Loonymonkey reverted relevant information and wrote that on Obama's website there "is nothing of the sort", referring to Obama's dual citizenship and native born citizen status. As a matter of fact it is clearly stated on fightthesmears.com right at the beginning of that webpage. It says there: "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America." This statement means that Barack Obama is (on this website) termed a "native born citizen" of the US, in other words: born in the US as a native. That's what it says. There can be no second opinion about this. The other information that Loonymonkey willfully (and with bias?) deleted, was that this webpage also refers to the dual jurisdiction that Obama was under at the time of his birth. It says: "As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." (Originally from the Annenberg Foundation: FactCheck.org.) This statement means that Obama was governed not only by the US but also by the United Kingdom, in other words: under dual jurisdiction. That's what it says. There can be no second opinion about this, especially considering the fact that the British Nationality Act is also mentioned in the main text of the article, however in a different context (lawsuit), but to avoid bloating the main text this further info was moved to a footnote. Since this is all based on factual information from the Obama campaign website, I have re-inserted the complete footnote and ask Loonymonkey to refrain from vandalizing this article. Thank you. —85.179.129.222 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, after 10 second review and not taking sides(of course), this sounds like a content dispute which is very different from vandalism. Please do not accuse editors of vandalism when its more of a difference of opinion on how the article should be crafted, this is not good faith. Getting other eyes involved always seems to help. Good luck, --Tom 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? You really should read up on what WP:VANDALISM actually is rather than throwing the accusation around every time you disagree with an edit. (Actually, you should probably read WP:AGF and WP:NPA while you're at it).

Back to the subject at hand, the sentence you're attempting to add is quite different from what is written above from the ref. You claimed that "Obama declared his citizenship status at birth as "native citizen" under dual jurisdiction" (note the link to Multiple citizenship on the words "dual jurisdiction.") Obama has never made any such declaration and the claim that he had dual citizenship, a fringe theory bandied about by certain blogs and the basis of a couple of failed lawsuits, is not supported by any reliable source. Making such a statement (even in a hidden comment visible only to editors) would be a violation of WP:BLP. Why don't you let a few other editors weigh in before edit-warring and attempting to add this again, okay? --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Only three reasons . . .

i hate the ignorance of people writing stuff on wikipedia and calling themselves "americans" when they don't know shit about anything. A natural born US citizen can be of only three reason:

• born in the US.

• born outside the US to two US citizens, one must have resided in the US for at least for 10 years.

• born outside the US after November 13th 1986 to one US citizen lving in the US for at least 10 years, 5 after the age of 16 and one during their 14th birthday.

there you have it. Don't DARE to edit again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinanwolfgazo (talk • contribs)

I moved the above comment down to the end of the talk page, into a new section. In general, if you have a new comment, it's better to put it at the end of the talk page, rather than embed it deeply into the midst of other material, where your new comment is very likely to be overlooked by others.

As for your claim that people are being ignorant here: Sorry, but it's not that simple. You've summarized the current law under which people born outside the US are "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth", but there are still some problems.

• First, if the above material is to be put in the article, the source (Immigration and Nationality Act, section 301; 8 USC 1401) needs to be cited.

• Second, there are other relevant situations — such as someone born out of wedlock to an American mother who had previously spent at least one continuous full year in the US [INA 309(c), 8 USC 1409(c)] — or people born under the provisions of older laws — so the above summarization should not be presented as if it were complete.

• Third, and perhaps most importantly, not everyone agrees that having US citizenship at birth is the same as being a "natural born" US citizen. Although some people (you evidently among them) do believe these two concepts are obviously equivalent, some (not obviously crackpot) arguments have been presented over the years to the effect that a "natural born citizen" must have been born in the US.

So it's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to believe it is.

And FWIW, I personally do happen to believe that "natural born" and "citizen at birth" are the same thing, and that the expression does include people born outside the US but with citizenship conferred upon them from birth under US law as it was in effect at the time of their birth — but I also recognize that it's an open question with legitimate alternative viewpoints that need to be treated neutrally and even-handedly in this article. Richwales (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed under "Legislation and executive branch policy"

" In addition, George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law, yet it was not vetoed.

In 1795, the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790, to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."[5] George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change, and yet did not veto it."

There are two references to these acts not being vetoed by President Washington. It is entirely unclear why not vetoing these acts is relevant. It appears that the intent is a suggestion that the two acts are inconsistent and that not vetoing them is an act of inconsistency on Washington's part, but then Congress itself was already inconsistent in passing them.

If I am missing the significance, then perhaps can it be rephrased in a way that is more clear?

Suggestion: Whoever added the statement regarding Washington's decision not to veto these acts explain the relevance of Washington's decision, or delete these clauses.

Koyar (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)koyar

I am not the person who added the statements in question, but I believe the intent was that since George Washington was one of the original framers of the Constitution (including its "natural born citizen" provision), he must (presumably) have seen no problem either with saying that foreign-born children of Americans were "natural born", or that they were not — for if he had felt strongly enough about the issue, one way or the other, he would (presumably) have vetoed one bill or the other over this point alone.

This, in turn, would be an argument supporting those who do not believe that "natural born citizen" means precisely the same as "citizen at birth". And it might possibly be an argument supporting those who believe Congress has no authority to define or alter what "natural born citizen" means — since, in their view, the 1790 law's attempt to say that foreign-born children of Americans were "natural born" would have been an overstepping on Congress's authority, which went unnoticed in 1790, but which was corrected by deleting the term from the 1795 statute — a corrective action which Washington must (presumably) have approved of because he signed the 1795 bill.

I, personally, am not persuaded by this reasoning — and even if I were, it's clearly a major chunk of synthesis or original research that does not belong in Wikipedia, unless a reliable source can be found to support it. Even in that case, the text of the article would need to be reworded to say something like "So-and-So has argued that President George Washington's failure to veto either the 1790 or the 1795 naturalization law implies that Washington and other original framers of the Constitution held such-and-so view regarding the significance of the 'natural born citizen' clause." Without any citable source of this sort, I would definitely recommend removing any mention of Washington's signing (or failing to veto) these bills. Richwales (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got it right. It's likely a wikipedia editor drawing conclusions by inference. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I edited this section to remove the unwarranted speculation. I also rearranged and reworded some other parts of the section to make it a bit easier to read and to remove some of the nit-picky clutter. In this sort of summary/overview of a complex topic, we can't possibly include every tiny detail, and (IMHO) we really shouldn't try to do so, because the more we load up the text with precise dates and specific statutory cites, the more likely it is that other editors will feel compelled to add even more, until the end result reads more like a legal brief than an encyclopedia article. Richwales (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't author the passages, but before jumping to the conclusion that this is WP:Synth, I would suggest checking the Annals of Congress. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is any discussion, in the legislative history of either bill, of the "natural born citizen" phrase, then I agree it could be appropriate to comment that so-and-so said such-and-such about the topic (with appropriate cites to specific pages of the Annals of Congress). But I still disagree with the original text, which (I believe) implied an unsubstantiated "silence is assent" conclusion based on the lack of presidential vetoes. Richwales (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merger proposal was not merged. Jafeluv (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The overlap between this article and Birthright citizenship in the United States of America is immense. The fact that there are interesting Constitutional issues attached to the specific phrasing does not, in my opinion, require a separate article. Keeping the facts and citations accurate in both requires double work (and twice the amount of discussion) that consolidating the two would entail.Roregan (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would not support merging the two articles. They involve different clauses in the Constitution, and those clauses were put into the Constitution a century apart. The Natural Born Citizen Clause is in Article II of the original Constitution, and the Citizenship Clause is in the Fourteenth Amendment. They are undoubtedly related, but they also have very different aims, different implications, and different histories.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the same reasons Ferrylodge put forth. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The issues relating to these two articles are, for the most part, very different. If a merger is needed, I would propose merging both of these articles into the United States citizenship article. Richwales (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - As stated above the specific issues relating to this subject are very different and this separate article on natural born citizen is needed as the clause is unique in our Constitution and should be retained as a separate and unique article and not merged into any other general article. Mtngoat63 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Same reasons. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with the above. Plus, Natural Born Citizen is only used in the Constitution as a qualification for President or Vice President. The 14th Amendment only mentions "citizen" and does not use the term "natural born citizen." Thus, "natural born citizen" does not necessarily mean the same thing as citizen at birth. "Natural born citizen" could be a legal term of art that means something other than just citizen at time of birth. The citizenship cases when using the term "natural born citizen" are being sloppy with terminology or are providing obiter dicta. Only a presidential qualification challenge case could provide precedent on the meaning of the term. Tommylotto (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with all of the above. There is a profound difference between natural and naturalized citizenship, as the article clearly states. I support leaving them unmerged and separate. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is a big difference between natural and naturalized. Do not merge these articles. T3chl0v3r (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Key distinction" and "to parents who are U.S. citizens"

User "Fodderoni" made several edits this afternoon which I feel are inappropriate and am going to revert. My reasons are too long to fit in an edit summary, so I'm putting them here.

• In the section "Constitutional provisions", the original text read: It is thought by some that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil is a "natural born citizen" eligible to someday become president or vice-president . . . . The other editor added to parents who are U.S. citizens and the ungrammatical Latin ("jus soli jus sanguine"). Since this paragraph is laying out two extremes (birth in the U.S. vs. later naturalization), it is IMHO not proper to narrow the meaning further by making these additions. (And, BTW, the correct Latin phrase for citizenship by descent is jus sanguinis, but it still doesn't belong here.)

• In the section "Legislation and executive branch policy", the editor added a paragraph reading: The U.S. Constitution makes the key distinction (using the term "or") between the terms "Natural Born U.S. Citizen" (or) "U.S. Citizen" ("...'natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States..."). All Natural Born U.S. Citizens are U.S. Citizens, but not all U.S. Citizens are Natural Born U.S. Citizens (jus soli jus sanguinus). All persons born in the United States to parents who are U.S. Citizens are "Natural Born Citizens". There is, as far as I can tell, no justification for concluding that this is a "key distinction" (unless a reliable source can be cited in support of this). The added material contrasts "natural born Citizen" with "Citizen of the United States" without noting the words following "Citizen of the United States" (namely, a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) — material which (I would say) deflates the claim that this constitutes a "key distinction" between natural born citizens and other types of citizen. The claim that all persons born in the US "to parents who are U.S. Citizens" is POV here, since (as explained elsewhere in the article) one part of the dispute over the meaning of "natural born citizen" is whether or not the phrase includes US-born children of alien parents. And the rampant capitalization in this added material is noot appropriate in modern usage.

• The reference to Senate Resolution 511 of the 110th Congress (the resolution wherein the Senate unanimously affirmed John McCain's status as a natural born citizen) is out of place here, because it really has nothing to do with the claim of a "key distinction" between "citizen" and "natural born citizen", and it certainly has nothing to do with the status of someone born in the US to American parents. I hesitate on principle to remove a reference to a source, but it simply isn't relevant here (though it may very possibly be relevant somewhere else in the article).

This is my second major reversion in this article today, so I'm going to take a break after this, lest anyone accuse me of trying to claim ownership of the article or engage in an edit war. If others agree (or disagree) with what I did or my reasons for doing it, by all means go ahead and express your viewpoints. Richwales (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The current text and edits on this "Natural Born Citizen" page have focused on emphasizing the definition of "U.S. Citizen" and not the distinct definition of "Natural Born Citizen", which after all is supposed to be the purpose of this Wikipedia page. The former broad category of US Citizen is inclusive of the latter of Natural Born US Citizen but they are distinct and this distinction is referred to in the US Constitution by using "OR" between the two definitions in the requirements for POTUS. This page's attempted obfuscation to blur the definitions of the types of citizenships is obviously a biased effort by an obviously biased set of editors for obvious reasons. Nowhere on this page is the distinction drawn between "natural born" versus "native born" versus "naturalized" versus "by statute" or even plural citizenships and edits actively discourage the proper definitions. The definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is so obvious that even Barack Hussein Obama, Senator Leahy, Secretary Chertoff, Nancy Pelosi, and others as recently as last Spring emphasized in various public documents that a natural born citizen is born of parentS who are "US CitizenS" (plural) and on US soil. Of course there are many other clear historical references from John Bingham, Wong Kim Ark, and Perkins v. Elg. All of the rejoinders pertaining to US Citizenship are utterly irrelevant to the purpose of this page, and have no rightful place upon this page because as the Constitution so clearly delineates, a US Citizen who is not a Natural Born Citizen must have been alive at the time of the ratification to be eligible for the office of POTUS. The intellectual content of this page is disturbingly political and non-factual. It needs to be gutted and written in an honest fashion, not one meant to mislead the casual reader.

Look at the first element to this page which is chock full of horrible inaccuracies:

---

The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States. The meaning of the term "natural born citizens of the United States" can defined in categories[1]:

   * Anyone born inside the United States 

(UNTRUE: A person born of foreign national(s) inside the United States will have plural citizenships and is therefore not a "natural born citizen"--they ARE a "Native Born" US Citizen, however.)

   * 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 

(TRUE: Native Americans born in the U.S. are always genuine "Natural Born Citizens".)

   * 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. 

(UNTRUE: The baby born of at least one US Citizen parent outside of US soil is not a "Natural Born Citizen"; they are however a U.S. Citizen who may naturalize.)

   * 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 

(UNTRUE: The baby born outside of US soil to at least one US Citizen parent is not a "Natural Born Citizen"; they are however a U.S. Citizen and may naturalize as such.)

   * 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  

(UNTRUE: The baby born on U.S. soil is a Native-Born U.S. Citizen but unless both parents are U.S. Citizens the baby is not a "Natural Born Citizen".)

   * 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 

(UNTRUE: A child of unknown parentage who shows up in the U.S. is not proven to be a "Natural Born Citizen".)

   * 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) 

(UNTRUE: A child born to an alien and a US Citizen born outside of the U.S. may be a Dual Citizen and a Naturalized U.S. Citizen but not a "Natural Born Citizen")

   * 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."  

(UNTRUE: A child born a Dual Citizen is not a "Natural Born Citizen" but is a Native Born US Citizen.)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fodderoni (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You make an interesting point about the "or" as used between "natural born citizen" and "citizen". I always assumed that there were two classes of qualified persons: 1) a natural born Citizen, or 2) a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. However, I note in the official text that there is a comma between "a Citizen of the United States" and "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" The comma might complicate interpretation. However, do you have any reliable verifiable authorities for this interpretation. We cannot have any original research on WP.Tommylotto (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire first section sets a false premise for the Natural Born Citizen Wikipedia page. The reference (#1) states: "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", or in other words natural-born U.S. Citizens". FALSE. Title 8 and Section 1401 NEVER state "in other words natural-born U.S. Citizens". In fact they simply state what they do define, which is the broad category of "U.S. Citizens". "Natural Born Citizens" fall under this category as do "Naturalized", "By Statute", "Native-Born" and "Plural" Citizenships, but a "Natural Born Citizen" (jus sanguine jus soli--by the way "jus sanguine" IS a correct way of stating "law of blood") is a distinct and differentiated subcategory. OTHERWISE the Constitution would not have specifically differentiated by virtue of the word "OR" the term "Natural Born Citizen" versus "U.S. Citizen".

This first section defines merely U.S. Citizenship, a direction which is only a "red herring", and sets the stage to muddle the entire definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Nowhere in the cited reference does it state there is an assumption that any U.S. Citizen is a Natural Born Citizen. That is preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.32.250 (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The whole reason why this article exists in the first place is that there have been ongoing controversies over the precise definition of the phrase "natural born citizen". Among the points that are not universally agreed upon (even if you consider only "mainstream" opinions) are the following:

• whether "natural born citizen" is, or is not, precisely the same (by definition) as "citizen at birth" — many people do admittedly consider this to be an obvious no-brainer, but some do not.

• whether any statutory definition of citizenship can possibly be relevant to what "natural born citizen" means — or whether this phrase (being in the Constitution) can only be defined by the Constitution itself (via strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and Congress's power to create a uniform rule of naturalization).

• whether some people born outside the US to an American parent or parents are "natural born citizens" because Congress says certain such people are citizens at/from birth — or whether such people can only be considered as having been "naturalized at birth" (or something similar) because the Constitution talks about citizenship at birth only in the 14th Amendment (which only deals with people born in the US).

• whether a person born in the US, to an alien parent or parents, might not be a "natural born citizen", even though acts of Congress (and presumably also the 14th Amendment, though some do disagree on this) say that such a person is a citizen at birth.

• whether a person born in the US is a "natural born citizen" even if he/she has "dual" citizenship — which could easily happen because an ancestral country may happen to consider that person to also be one of its citizens via descent (according to its own laws, and without regard for US law).

This is why there have, over the years, been questions or challenges raised over the eligibility of candidates such as Chester Arthur, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, John McCain, and Barack Obama. None of these challenges has ever been upheld, of course, and some may have been little more than fringe crackpot delusions, but the question has come up and has been seriously discussed by knowledgeable people because the issue is not considered definitively settled.

Since there is a divergence of mainstream opinion on this topic, WP:NPOV requires us to recognize the various positions and report on the controversy in an even-handed fashion. We can not simply embrace one set of positions — such as that "natural born citizens" comprise all persons designated "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" under current statute law (the Immigration and Nationality Act, or its restatement in 8 USC) — or that "natural born citizens" means all (and only) those born in the US to two American parents — and put forth this one view as the obviously correct definition of the phrase, and give short shrift to opposing arguments. We don't need to automatically give equal weight to crackpot fringe theories, but we do need to acknowledge that this is a controversial subject and give the reader a balanced and fair understanding of the various arguments and the reasoning behind them.

This is why I have been objecting to the recent edits, which, in my view, give grossly undue prominence to one point of view to the minimizing / exclusion of others. The fact that I, personally, happen to believe that "natural born citizen" does mean exactly the same thing as "citizen at birth" (as determined by the statutes in effect at the time of a person's birth) does not lessen my commitment to help make this article reflect a neutral viewpoint. Richwales (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To Richwales: I agree and you are right on point on the need for the article to be neutral. I have edited the article to put the USC Title 8 Section 1401 to an appropriate place in this article, Legislation regarding citizenship. Putting a definition of types of statutory "nationals and citizens at birth" at the very top of this article and saying it defines categories of "natural born citizenship" is totally false, misleading, and an obfuscation of the facts. The term "natural born citizen" is not defined in any statute in U.S. Code. Implying it is, is very deceptive and is not appropriate for this article. Mtngoat63 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I reworked the "Legislation and executive branch policy" section to summarize the basic concepts of 8 USC 1401ff., but without the verbatim quote of the entire section (which seemed to me to be out of character with the rest of the section). Please note that a full treatment of "citizenship at birth" under current statutes would need to include not just section 1401, but also the following sections through section 1409. Additionally, since Title 8 of the United States Code has not been enacted as positive law, a proper cite of this material really needs to refer to it as "sections 301-309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act". Richwales (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional provisions

I'm uneasy with the paragraph beginning with "It is thought by some" — this seems to be promoting one particular view of natural-born citizenship (and probably not the majority view) ahead of other views. Maybe this paragraph (or some variation thereon) might make more sense in the later "Various other opinions" section?

Also, I'm not comfortable with the summary of the 14th Amendment's "citizenship clause". The amendment does not use the phrase "citizenship by law"; and, from what I've read, this particular phrase seems to be promoted most often by people who argue that anyone born outside the US — even those designated as being "citizens at birth" under current statutes — can (constitutionally) only be some sort of naturalized citizen (and thus not natural born). I would prefer to see this paragraph reworded so as not to use the phrase "citizenship by law" — and also so it doesn't sound like we're saying the 14th Amendment envisions only these two possible ways of being a US citizen (something it doesn't say, or at least is not held by any sort of broad consensus to say). Richwales (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Irrevocability of Natural Citizenship" ??

Themoodyblue and I have a disagreement over whether this material belongs in this article or not. To me, it seems like a synthesis of original research — in no small part because it currently cites no sources. Also, I think it's off topic: something like this (if suitably sourced and made more NPOV) might be OK in the article on United States nationality law, but not here. The only real link I can see between this material and the rest of the "natural born citizen" article would be a possible tie-in to the claim made by some that Obama had lost his US citizenship as a child while in Indonesia with his stepfather — but since that claim was never adjudicated, I really don't think we can get away with just flatly declaring it to be in error (either in this article, or in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Rather than make this dispute into more of an edit war than it's already becoming, I (and hopefully also Themoodyblue) would welcome comments from others on this. Richwales (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the material is correct vis a vis citizenship, but should be supported by proper authorities. However, I think it is pure speculation that this rule of law concerning citizenship would apply to natural born citizenship. Since the distinction between the two concepts is the reason this page exists, such an assertion (that the principle applies to natural born citizenship as well as citizenship) must be supported by reliable third party sources -- and even if it can be supported, unless it is a federal appellate court decision in a presidential qualification challenge, the assertion should not be considered conclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrevocability of natural citizenship

I have moved the article section quoted below here

Irrevocability of natural citizenship

Natural United States citizenship cannot be revoked for any reason, except through voluntary, uncoerced, freely given self-renunciation by the individual citizen through their own choice and decision. The government has no power to revoke natural citizenship, even for treason or other high crimes. Naturalized citizens, conversely, do not have this same absolute protection. This absolute protection of natural citizenship is based on the idea that natural citizenship is a fundamental right, while in many ways the law views naturalized citizenship as a privilege that must be earned to gain the right. Natural citizenship is based in the ancient Latin concepts of both jus soli - the more commonly understood concept of being born on United States soil to gain citizenship - and jus sanguinis, the concept of of being born to parents who are United States citizens ("jus sanguinis" literally translates as "right of blood") whether born on United States soil or elsewhere. Both create an individual to natural citizenship. The individual must also be under the jurisdiction of the United States and one of the several States or Commonwealths of the United States, US Territories, Federal Districts, Embassies, Consulates or Missions, US Military Bases or Facilities, or any other place where the United States government holds exclusive, or primary concurrent, jurisdiction.

This is not cite-supported. Sources which appear to refute parts of this include the following three pieces of advice from the U.S. Department of State, which make no exception for "Natural United States citizens":

• Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality
• Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Foreign Military Service
• Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Seeking Public Office in a Foreign State

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It might additionally be noted that the current statute dealing with loss of US citizenship — INA 349(a), 8 United States Code 1481(a) — explicitly applies both to citizenship "whether by birth or naturalization". Also, the landmark Supreme Court case which declared the retention of US citizenship to be a constitutionally protected right — Afroyim v. Rusk — involved a naturalized US citizen. In any event, even if the paragraph in question were to be cleaned up and properly sourced, my opinion remains that this material doesn't belong in this article, since the primary focus of this article is on the concept of "natural born" citizenship as a requirement for the Presidency. Richwales (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Material removed from article

This edit removed the following snippet from the end of the Various other opinions section.

In Marbury vs Madison, Chief Justice Marshall stated:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

Therefore the term "natural born citizen" must have some effect other than the effect of the term "citizen" as found in the 14th Ammendment.

with an edit summary saying, rv; see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; this comment could be OK if a reliable secondary source is found which discusses Marshall's comment and tries to apply it to the issue at hand.

Googling around, I see an article titled SCOTUS Has No Original Jurisdiction To Issue A Writ of Quo Warranto re Obama; Legal presumption in favor of natural born citizen clause and effect on http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a website operated by Leo Donofrio. Donofrio is a former lawyer, and was the plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells. The washingtonpost.com article Supreme Court Declines to Hear Obama Nationality Case has some info about that case and about Donofrio.

WP:RS says that self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I'm located on a small island in the Philippines and it's not easy for me to check for info on Donofrio's established expertise or on his publication history, but I thought I would mention this here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Consular reports of birth abroad ..."

I moved the following here from the end of the Legislation and executive branch policy section:

Consular reports of birth abroad state that citizenship is granted by law, 22 USC 2705. This is true even when one parent is not a citizen. Also, the language on the report states that the child "acquired United States citizenship at birth." The report merely recognizes the citizenship that inheres in the child of a citizen at the moment of birth. It is reasonable to assume that anyone who automatically becomes a citizen at birth would be a "natural born citizen." Such a person is not a "foreigner," but has a direct link to the United States through the American citizen parent, especially so if that parent is a natural born citizen.

The initial sentence or two probably are statement of fact, but supporting sources should be cited. The remainder seems to be presenting an argument (see WP:SOAP). Such an argument does not belong in Wikipedia unless it is reported as the position of a notable outside party, supported by citations of reliable secondary sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical References

For the classic and historic definition of “natural born citizen”, I will cite three sources of the many possible. But first I will provide the real definition of “natural born citizen”

A natural born citizen is a person born on United States soil or territory to parents both of whom are at the time of that birth, themselves citizens of the United States.

For the sources of this information please read the following :

Source One : Emmerich de Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” 1758

That Vattel’s book “Laws of Nations” was in the hands and minds of those who wrote the Constitution was attested to by none other than Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Charles W.F. Dumas dated Dec. 9, 1775 in which Franklin wrote :

'“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...”'

For verification of the substantial use of Vattel by the writers of the Declaration of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence please refer to the following websites :

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm

And now to Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” . In Chapter 19 (XIX) Section 212 Mr. Vattel stated the following  :

“ The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens “

And later in that same section these words :

“ I say that in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen, for if he is born of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth and not his country. “

Please keep these words in mind when you read Source Three hereafter.

Source Two : Senator John A. Bingham

Senator John A. Bingham was the principle author of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution (also known as the Citizens Rights Amendment).

Senator Bingham said while speaking about the rights of citizens in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 6, 1866 the following :

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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…. . . ”- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Pleases note the words “ … of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, is in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. “

For reference to this statement please refer to the following website :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham

Source Three : The United States Constitution

Article 2 Section 1, paragraph 5 of the Constitution states the following specific qualifications for President of the United 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. “

Please note the words “ natural born citizen” .

Please note that elsewhere in the Constitution, the qualifications for Senator and Representative provide that they be only a “citizen” of the United States.

Whereas, the more stringent “ natural born citizen” was placed upon those seeking to be President.

It was duly reported that during the drafting of the Constitution, the original clause for qualification of President required only “citizen” of the United States. But, serious discussion of this matter ensued and it was finally agreed upon, and recorded that “citizen” was redacted and that the new words “natural born citizen” were inserted.

The writer’s of the Constitution at the time were “citizens” but were NOT themselves “natural born citizens” being born on the land of this nation when it was the Brittish colonies, or born to parents who were not citizens of the United States at the time of their birth. So they also wrote the exception clause  :

“ … or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

…specifically to allow men like themselves to seek and hold the office of President, but to order ever after their generation passed away, that only “natural born citizens” and not just “citizens” would hold the office of President of the United States.

George Washington was born in Virginia to parents both born in Virginia (at the time a Brittish colony). James Madison, the 3rd President was also born in Virginia to parents who were also born in Virginia. Since Virginia just became American soil.... why did these men consider themselves only citizens... and not "natural born citizens" ? That is if place of birth mattered. Could it be the allegiance of their parents to Brittian ?

No these men were thinking about their own progeny. Those who thereafter would be born on U.S. soil to parents BOTH of whom were citizens.

Thus from the Constitution itself, you can see that it is possible to be a “citizen” of the United States but not a “natural born citizen” of the United States and therefore not be eligible to run for the office of President.

Under the 14th Amendment and many references cited in discussion articles above, birth on U.S. soil to parents (one or both) that are not citizens of the United States granst one "citizenship" but never "natural born citizenship".

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment begins :

" 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."

Therefore one can readily see from the 14th Amendment that citizenship is granted by birth or naturalization. That this is ONLY citizenship and not the more stringent natural born citizenship is evident.

As others have said, birth on foreign soil to parents who are citizens, grants the child "citizenship" but never "natural born citizenship".

Natural born citizenship is a tripod requirement like a three legged stool Leg one = born on U.S. soil, Leg two = father is a citizen Leg three = mother is also a citizen.

Failure of any one leg of the tripod.... causes the argument to fail, and therefore the failure to confer "natural born" citizenship.

Conclusion

It becomes apparent from the historical documents thus cited, and the political situation of the founders of our Constitution, that they intended that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would a President of the United states be beholden to any foreign soverignty either through birth or through either parent.

Therefore a person born in the United States of a parent or parents who are not U.S. citizens at the time of birth..... should not be a "natural born citizen".

Wordwaryor (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this material. If any of it is to be included in the article, it may (in my opinion) be used only to show that some people have argued for this view. This material must NOT be used in such a way as to say, "This is the true definition of 'natural born citizen', as proven by the following statements." If you do not understand why someone might take such a stance, please re-read WP:PSTS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Richwales (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html is not a reliable source. First, it is a one person website. Second, the introduction on the home page starts, "While preparing a presentation on the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton for chapter meetings of the LaRouche movement, I realized how badly Americans have been misled on their own nation's history." I suggest sticking with uninterpreted quotations for Vattel, or using the views of recognized historians.   Will Beback  talk  17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Emmerich de Vattel is misleading.

The way Emmerich de Vattel is quoted here is a clear example of novel synthesis and soapboxing.

"Les Naturels, ou Indigènes, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens."

The translation quoted here is from 1883. Surely, looking at the timeline of this debate, that version was not written "in tempore non suspecto". And no, it does not help that this gets quoted in a dissent part, because the exact phrasing here "cited the preeminent treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations” which was known to have influenced the drafters of the original constitution".

1) Cited. If they indeed quoted the text as mentioned here, they did not cite Vattel's work, they used a translation, a non-neutral one. We are getting very close to a hoax here, people. "Referred to" would have been better.

2) Preeminent = "greatest in importance or degree or significance or achievement". Sorry, POV and peacock language.

3) was known to? Are we sure? Some may say that the use of the past tense implies that it was merely the dissent saying that, but of course they are saying that, since they are using it. Basically, if you have a good source for that "known to", you will find that it does not refer specifically to this part of the constitution, and so you must ensure that if you are using it, you are not implying that Vattel indeed specifically influenced this particular passage in the US constitution (the impression the passage as written now is trying to create)

The two translations which existed at the time of the writing of the US constitution said: "The natives, or indigenes, are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens." In other words, even if we believe that de Vattel influenced the drafters of the constitution, he could not possible have influenced this part of it, since "Les Naturels, ou Indigènes, ..." was not known to the drafters as "natural born citizens".

Note that later in the paragraph, de Vattel refers to fathers - making it clear that this French sentence is in a "universal plural". De Vattel never considered the citizen status of the mother - "Je dis que pour être d'un pays, il fait être né d'un pére Citoyen" in opposition to "car si vous êtes né d'un Etranger" (=and not "d'une etrangère").

Note that Canadian nationality laws distinguish between

- "citoyens de naissance" meaning both a) all those born in Canada (with the usual exception of children of foreign embassy personnel) and b) those born abroad with at least one Canadian citizen parent who is not an adoptive parent

- "citoyens naturalisés".

Obviously "citoyens de naissance" is equivalent to "natural born citizens". Compare these two Canadian government websites:

[English version]

[French version]

How can you get from "Naturels" or "Indigènes" - a term which suggests Native Americans and does not even use the word "citoyen(s)" to "Natural born citizen"? This is now novel synthesis on my part, but it seems obvious that that translation is based on the US constitution. So, this is not Vattel influencing the US constitution, it is actually the other way around: the US constitution influencing the translation of Vattel.

So how to restore accountability and non-POV? "Preeminent" must go, of course. The phrase quoted form Vattel should be his exact words in French , and both translations, the one available to the drafters of the constitution and the one available to the makers of the dissent motion one century later should be quoted between brackets, with their respective dates. Anything else is purely misleading.

We also need to use the original French title of Vattel's book and not, or not only, the shortened English translation which is used by birfers to make the work seem more googly-important than it really is, because "Law of Nations" is simply the English translation of the continental European legal term "Völkerrecht", ius gentium, droit des gens.

Sources: [Vattel hoax exposed], [Various translations]

If, as I hope not, Vattel eventually gets more attention here (because birfers continue pushing Obama conspiracy theories) then Canadian nationality terminology will need to be mentioned. And the fact that Vattel never thought that BOTH parents had to be citizens should also be included. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How pathetic. "Les Naturels" = "the naturals". French = global diplomatic language. Period. Natural citizens = citizens born natural/natural born. In any case, you should read the proceedings: They used the term "native" as well, for them meaning the same as "natural". So yeah, please wind it back to the French original… do whatever you like… it doesn't change the fact that "naturales" means "naturals". (And by the way: Vattel is not part of a conspiracy theory. Those dimwits asking for the birth certificate are conspiracy theorists. Vattel is not part of the BC BS. It's "only" part of a valid legal question: Can a person subject to UK jurisdiction at birth be a "natural" US citizen? 85.178.118.61 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree that Native, as it's translated in the Original English and American Translations, is the same as Natural-Born. My question to you is why the founding fathers, who were all lawyers and very familiar with English Common Law, would abandon the fact that English Common Law, which everybody would be already familiar with, already defined Natural-Born, and take their definition from a translation that didn't even have the words "Natural-Born" in it? The De Vattel people are just as much of conspiracy theorists as others. Furthermore, to believe that this is a valid legal question that hasn't already been decided with Chester A. Arthur, you also must believe that the Entire U.S. Nation was duped into believing that Chester A. Arthur was a Natural-Born Citizen, when it was known by at least some people that his father was not a U.S. Citizen when Chester A. Arthur was born. It at best is an extreme minority view, that has already been rejected over 100 years ago by the precedent of Chester A. Arthur. Just as citizens who were born in a U.S. Territory which later became a state is decided by the precedent of Charles Curtis, and citizens who were born in the District of Columbia was decided by the precedent of Al Gore. Dunstvangeet (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed broken links under "Sources:" above. I've also edited the text in the article to insert a missing comma which is present in the quoted-from source (your requote above from the article probably ought to be similarly edited, but I have not done that). Also, re your point that the quoted translation is from 1883, I see that this source (cited in the article, but not on this point) quotes the preface to the 1852 edition as saying, "The text of the present translation of Vattel has been carefully compared with that of the original work, in the first edition which appeared, (Londres, 1758, 2 vol. in quarto,) published at Neufchatel; in that of Amsterdam, (Van Harrevelt, 1775, 2 vol. in quarto,) the best known till recently; and in that of M. de Hoffmans, (Paris, 1839, 2 vol. in octavo,) the last and best edition. ...". I don't have the time (or the expertise) to go into this much deeper than that. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Verification needed

The statement I tagged FV claims a minority view. The cited reference does not (currently) support the claim that the statement made is a minority view. Further, the referenced source seems to contradict the statement made. From the cited source: "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."

While I believe that the idea that a naturalized citizen could be considered a "natural born citizen" as mentioned in the Constitution is wrong and would certainly represent a minority view, I do not have any sources to provide to back that up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Wilson (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The certainty over whether Chester Arthur and Barack Obama were born in Vermont & Hawaii, respectively

I don't think stating that Chester Arthur & Barack Obama were "apparently" born in Vermont & Hawaii, respectively, constitutes the use of "weasel words." The whole section in question is about a controversy as to where they were born; if there is no question as to where they were born, then why does the section exist at all? By simple virtue of the section's existence, we're acknowledging that the location of their birth remains an issue yet to be definitively settled by history. Stating they were "apparently"" born in Vermont & Hawaii respectively, seems to merely acknowledge that a controversy exists, while still favouring the dominant, mainstream view that they were born in Vermont and Hawaii (as the case may be).

My understanding is that Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961, and that his mother was in Mombassa, Kenya at least as recently as late July of 1961 (and that no records exist which provide the definite date of her arrival back to the USA). And more importantly, his birth was not registered with the authorities in Hawaii until several weeks after his birth, while eyewitnesses in Mombassa, who were acquainted with the President's late father, have come forward to claim he was born there. Consequently, the validity of his Hawaiian Birth Certificate is legitimately in question. And interestingly, the Governor of Hawaii issued an executive order to prevent any journalists, or other people, from viewing the original copy of his Birth Certificate at the state archives, which within the larger context of this whole, convoluted political narrative, would be considered very suspicious...ordinarily. Because I have noted these facts, via the use of the term "apparently," it has been strongly implied I am a "birther" (which I didn't really appreciate, since I've never seen the term used when it wasn't being implied that the person in question was also some sort of stupid, ignorant yokel), which is apparently some derogatory term concocted by Democratic Party activists at MSNBC and/or The Huffington Post, used to deride people who don't just automatically assume that any claim by a Democrat should be taken at face value, or something like that. Politicians in both major U.S. political parties lie all the time (there's also some question as to whether Barack Obama may have been born in Kenya, yet sincerely believes he was born in Hawaii; the only person who certainly knew for a fact, his mother, is deceased), and if a woman who was in Kenya at least as recently as late July of 1961, comes forward in late August of 1961, and claims her son was born in Hawaii on August 4th, then I suppose some people believe we should do as the state of Hawaii did in 1961 (and which I doubt they would do today), and simply take her at her word without any documentation. I think, however, that a proper respect for WP:NPOV requires that some degree of skepticism be applied to Stanley Obama's unsubstantiated claim that she was in Honolulu at the time of her son's birth (in light of the fact we know for certain she was in Kenya a few days earlier, and we are uncertain what date she arrived back in the USA).

I don't claim to know whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, or in Kenya. I doubt the issue will ever be proven definitively, and will probably linger for decades, and even centuries (much like the question over whether Chester Arthur was born in Canada or Vermont, or whether James Buchanan was a homosexual, or whether Warren G. Harding had Black African ancestry). To state that Barack Obama was "apparently" born in Hawaii actually strikes me as a compromise that is rather favourable to the orthodox view, since the notion that he was born in Hawaii is not apparent to me at all. He may or may not have been born there, but since all criticism of Barack Obama is apparently tabu in our society, or whatever, we can state he was "apparently" born there, irrespective of there not really being any strong evidence indicating that he was. But most people prefer to believe so anyway. Fine. So he was "apparently" born in Hawaii. Weasel wording? Or merely a refusal to take at face value a self-serving, unsubstantiated assertion from the world's most powerful politician?

As to the Chester Arthur angle, which I suspect no one else really cares about (but since I am more-or-less obsessed with Presidential historical trivia, and have been all my life, I actually do care about it), its also not clear there exists much in the way of actual evidence that Arthur was born in Vermont, but he claims he was, and there is no conclusive evidence he wasn't, hence he "apparently" was born in Vermont. But at this late stage in history, its probably unlikely the issue will ever be definitively settled. The Barack Obama issue generates much greater interest, presumably because it has the potential to lead to a Federal court case wherein the sitting President might be removed from office due to Constitutional ineligibility, but that is really not my concern. I have a keen interest in Presidential history (and for the record, stated many times during the 2008 election that I regarded Barack Obama as preferable to John McCain, although I actually voted for Ralph Nader), and believe the wording of this article should reflect the historical data we presently have at our disposal, not the partisan passions aroused by the political conflicts of the day. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the very definition of weasel words. Saying "apparently" gives undue weight to a fringe theory and obfuscates the fact that Obama actually was born in Hawaii (as has been established by reliable sources). Also, you seem to be mistaken on a number of facts, most notably the urban legend that Obama's mother was in Kenya a few days before his birth. Don't believe everything you read in a chain email. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

When there is significant doubt and concerns in reliable sources that something is true, it can be appropriate to use language that includes weasel words. That's especially true if that same language is used in many of the sources for that topic. When you're talking about that topic on Wikipedia, you use the same language that most sources (consensus) are using. WP:NPOV does not mean giving every viewpoint - it means covering the significant viewpoints without preference. WP:UNDUE further clarifies that while differing views should be covered in relative detail - this means that a minority viewpoint doesn't mean the article should be shaded to include the possibility of the viewpoint. Articles should cover such views in less detail than the main view, even ignoring very small minority views (UNDUE uses the example that the Earth article doesn't refer to the flat earth theory at all). I'd also suggest reading some on the WP:FRINGE page about including such views in articles.

For this article, most sources do refer to the birthplace of Obama and Arthur as being a fact. They might reference a conspiracy theory, but it's quickly dismissed. The majority view is that they were born in Hawaii and Vermont. Given that, the article needs to state that without equivocation. It can (and should) mention that there are some that think otherwise, but the article needs to reflect the view used by the majority of sources.

By including the word "apparently", we'd be given too much weight to a minority/fringe viewpoint. If strong evidence appears, and the views change, then we'd probably need to revisit this, but until then, the article needs to represent the majority view. Using weasel words serves to weaken statements, and are subtle POV shifts on their own. They just don't belong in those places in this article. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Saying "apparently" gives undue weight to a fringe theory and obfuscates the fact that Obama actually was born in Hawaii (as has been established by reliable sources)."

Reliable sources have not "established" that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Sources generally considered reliable have asserted it, but have yet to provide anything akin to definitive evidence to back up their assertions. If The New York Times asserts something without providing proper evidentiary citations, that doesn't necessarily make it true (nor does it disallow for the possibility it may be true, regardless of their inability and/or unwillingness to provide substantiation for their assertion, admittedly). While its true that Barack Obama has a Hawaiian Birth Certificate (issued in 1961 ie., two years after Hawaii achieved full statehood), and thus enjoys the legal rights & privileges of a natural citizen (as is proper), the question is concerning the validity of the issuance of that document, with particular reference to the lack of any apparent basis to believe any of the data transcribed upon it, other than faith in the honesty of Stanley Obama (and of course, within the decidedly relevant context of the Democratic Party-controlled government of Hawaii having taken the very unusual step of refusing to allow journalists, academics, and private citizens to view the original document, which rests in their archives, despite numerous requests - how can that peculiar fact not be taken as a very key aspect of the narrative?).

The so-called "birthers" must prove that Barack Obama's Hawaiian Birth Certificate was issued fradulently (they often make the mistake of assuming Barack Obama is required to prove the validity of his own Birth Certificate; no person with even a modicum of understanding of how the American system of civil justice actually operates could ever find themselves under a similar delusion), if they are to ever press their case that he is Constitutionally ineligible for office. But we are not bound by the strictures of the Federal court system; we are able to acknowledge a degree of amibguity ie., that Barack Obama has a Birth Certificate issued from Hawaii, and is thus legally regarded as a natural citizen, but to simultaneously acknowledge that very real and legitimate questions never-the-less surround the unorthodox manner by which that document was issued, and thus it seems merely apparent that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Hawaii. It is simply not a fact of history, even if it is, for at least the time being (and realistically, likely to remain so in the future) a fact of law.

"Articles should cover such views in less detail than the main view, even ignoring very small minority views (UNDUE uses the example that the Earth article doesn't refer to the flat earth theory at all)."

An exceedingly poor analogy. There exists copious evidence that the Earth is spherical in shape. The evidence that Stanley Obama was in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961 is nonexistent. There is a Hawaiian Birth Certificate that says she was, but it wasn't issued on that day, and the clerk merely transcribed whatever Mrs. Obama related. So the only evidence that Mrs. Obama was in Honolulu on August 4th is her claim that she was, X number of days after the fact. That is no evidence at all.

"By including the word "apparently", we'd be given too much weight to a minority/fringe viewpoint."

While it is surely true that most reliable sources assert that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961, and while it is certainly true that most people agree with those assertions, the truth is never-the-less not a popularity contest. Mainstream sources claim Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961, BUT THEY PROVIDE NOTHING AKIN TO DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSERTION IS ACCURATE! If The New York Times stated the Earth was flat, would we cease to regard the Earth as spherical? It takes more than an assertion from a reliable source; the reliable source must demonstrate its ongoing reliability by providing substantiation for its assertions. The mainstream media states very clearly that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, and then criticizes very harshly anyone who disagrees (which wouldn't really seem to be necessary, unless perhaps they are motivated in their criticism by some fundamental insecurity), but that is all they do. They don't then provide the proof that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu; they merely laugh at those who request proof. The mainstream media is not a priesthood; we do not have to take their pronouncements on faith. And yet, that is excactly what you are asking us to do with respect to this article. The only reason being uncertain about where Obama was born appears to be a fringe perspective (although it seems to be a fringe with tens of millions of domestic adherents, and growing rapidly) is because the very same dominant media outlets which refuse to publish any definitive proof that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu (presumably because they can not, although I suppose its remotely possible they merely don't wish to), have declared it to be a fringe view. Can you not see the inherently faulty nature of such a circular model of information dissemination?

He was born in Honolulu because the dominant media say he was. They do not provide any proof for this assertion. Failing to believe this unproven assertion marks one as a "fringe" character, who's views can, and ought to be, actively discounted. How is that not insane? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll echo the comments above ... Please read WP:FRINGE as it specifically addresses the concerns you have laid out. Per WP:V, we don't make editorial decisions behind what the RS's are stating without qualification. In short, the RS's don't say "apparantly", so neither do we. thanks, --guyzero | talk 06:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

KevinOKeeffe, you're touching on something that has caused difficulties on WP, and probably always will. What's "proof" for something? When is something "proved"? Relative to this particular case, that's not something easily defined, and it absolutely depends on the person. Some people take the word of the Hawaiian govt employee, others want to physically see and touch a document before they'd be convinced, and even then still have questions. So what's the level for Wikipedia?

The answer is that WP ducks the question totally - WP:V. It's not about "truth", but verifiable, reliable sources. If the majority of such sources accept something, that's what should be included in WP. The example I've seen from another editor was that back in Galileo's day, WP would have said the sun revolved around the earth, because that's what most reliable sources said at that time. We have to follow the same idea here - even if we personally disagree or don't believe something, if most sources say black is actually white, the article on black would describe it as white in color. That's also why nothing is fixed in WP - based on new evidence, that mainstream view can (and has) change. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a little grist for the mill... The vital records for Mr. Obama certainly indicate an Hawaiian birth. Those vital records create a prima facie case for the truth of the facts asserted therein. A prima facie case is not conclusive, but rather may still be rebutted by other evidence. However, the vital record serves to shift the burden of proving otherwise to the party challenging the fact asserted in the vital record. Thus, Mr. Obama has proven he was born in Hawaii, until and unless the "birthers" present evidence to overcome the presumption of a Hawaiian birth. Without commenting on whether I believe there is any reliable rebutting evidence (which would be irrelevant anyway), suffice it to say that according to a recent poll [5], 11% believe Obama was not born in Hawaii and 12% say that they are not sure (23% skeptical). Among Republicans 28% say he was not born in Hawaii and 30% are not sure (58% skeptical). So, although the evidence rebutting the presumption may be thin, those at least skeptical are not a tiny fringe, but a significant segment of the population.Tommylotto (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)