quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Natural is on U.S. soil. Any other is not.

Where exactly is it defined as "Natural born = born on US soil only" ?

What is "born Citizen" or "Citizen at birth" then as opposed to "natural born"?

What else could it be? The use of the word natural wouldn't be in reference to how someone was born as it relates to the birth process. In that time they didn't have medical advances to even conceive of the idea that there could be any other process. It was a term to describe something that occurred without question.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
What else could it be? The use of the word natural wouldn't be in reference to how someone was born as it relates to the birth process. In that time they didn't have medical advances to even conceive of the idea that there could be any other process. It was a term to describe something that occurred without question.

Since am not a legal expert I could only say that from reading it , it appears to me that natural born is used in the context as opposed to naturalized. So actual emphasis here is not on the process of giving a birth to a child, but what status such child has at the time of birth.
Therefore, if one is Citizen but wasn't born as such the term "Naturalized" used. And when one is born Citizen (is Citizen from the moment of birth) then such person is defined as natural born Citizen.

Of course I could be wrong. But you would need to show where the disctincion is made or where it says that US soil per se has ultimate and the only relevance to be natural born Citizen.
Where does it say that one born US Citizen abroad is anything but natural born and if so how such person is classified (since born is not equivalent of naturalized)?

That's the problem. This is used as an argument in the abortion debate. Based on it's use with regard to the office and our place in history at the time, it seems obvious. The fact there are rankings of citizenship supports it the more. Being born on U.S. soil would leave no question to assumed loyalty as compared to any other. There really are no other benchmarks or standards to weigh an infant's position or nationality other than place of birth. There has to be one, so that would necessitate it's use.

I did a little digging on the subject. To clarify the term natural as it relates to this subject a letter from an attorney General in 1865 is what I found best describes it.

...our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic...

There was a letter sent by John Jay to George Washington which touches on what I said earlier concerning loyalty as a result of birth.

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen

From this it gives reason as to why there are levels of citizenship and the benefits and risks associated with each one.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
I did a little digging on the subject. To clarify the term natural as it relates to this subject a letter from an attorney General in 1865 is what I found best describes it.

...our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic...

There was a letter sent by John Jay to George Washington which touches on what I said earlier concerning loyalty as a result of birth.

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen

From this it gives reason as to why there are levels of citizenship and the benefits and risks associated with each one.

But that opinion was asked of AG on the subject of US born people of color, whether they too are US Citizens at birth. To which the reply you quoted was given.

I have read little bit about it too, including 1857 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis and also Article IX, section 1 of Alexander Hamilton's plan to Convention (submitted 06/18/1987) where he states:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States".

From what I have read so far it appears that:

1) To be eligible for office of President one must be born US Citizen (and this, from what I understand, is what the term "natural born" really means. Someone who is born Citizen.)

2) It is also evident from 1401 that among other things having at least one USC parent who lived at least 5 years in US makes person a "born Citizen" regardless of place of birth (which I also understand to mean in the context "natural born").

The clause "... or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution..." was meant for all intents and purposes to accommodate Alexander Hamilton's probable presidential aspirations. Because Hamilton, despite his being an immigrant from the Caribbean, was simply too important among the Founding Fathers to be ignored at that time. But that after that period (or him), every future 'presidentiable' must be a 'natural born citizen.'

I'll go along with your first but not the second E. To be a natural citizen requires being born on location. All other classes are derived by action of law or some form of legitimization. Based on what the founding fathers intended, it would have precluded McCain from being eligible. Which in my opinion, should have been adhered to. When something so simple becomes convoluted to the extent a judge has to say highly probable to a person's status, the definition is flawed.

What will become interesting is when we have an unnaturally born individual. What rights will they have. Spare parts?

this is so ironic, and amusing - a stretched straw man always renders such results
if Obama or McCain were born on foreign soil and brought into the United States few days or weeks later, the logical conclusion of making the argument Davdah is making, is that the newborn allegiances will be automatically suspect, notwithstanding american upbringing, education and culture later in life..

Exactly. Those were not my thoughts alone. As I just discovered, the framers felt the same way, and for good reason. As demonstrated in the past, there is living proof on this very board.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Exactly. Those were not my thoughts alone. As I just discovered, the framers felt the same way, and for good reason. As demonstrated in the past, there is living proof on this very board.

so you agree that when a child is born overseas, even if they don't remember that event later in life, were raised American, brought up by the American society, STILL the child is suspect as to the true allegiance to the United States??

YUP! Absolutely, and this isn't just a theoretical conclusion. I saw it first hand. In any case a person is drawn to their roots. An amount of connection or sympathy exists. Even to the extent people have curiosities of their ancestry. Some line of time needs to be drawn and as it stands, it's birth.

As to how much an impact it would create in their judgment, if any, is irrelevant to the fact it may exist. The president, with all the power and might of our military behind them, is in a position where even the slightest deviation from absolute conviction to this country could have catastrophic results. The higher the office the more restrictive the entry, as it should be.

this is absolutely absurd!
there are no roots! being born is only a miniscule event
being raised and educated as an American citizen are roots

the only way a person born outside the United States when elected president would hesitate whether to bomb the country they were born in or not- and the only good decision that can be made is NOT

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
I'll go along with your first but not the second E. To be a natural citizen requires being born on location. All other classes are derived by action of law or some form of legitimization. Based on what the founding fathers intended, it would have precluded McCain from being eligible. Which in my opinion, should have been adhered to. When something so simple becomes convoluted to the extent a judge has to say highly probable to a person's status, the definition is flawed.

What will become interesting is when we have an unnaturally born individual. What rights will they have. Spare parts?

Ok, let's say it is as you say and it requires specifically that you must be born on location to be considered natural born (as opposed to born) Citizen.
1.Where did you read that?
2.What is difference between natural born Citizen and born Citizen?
3.There being only two classes of Citizens (natural born and naturalized), where does born [overseas] Citizen fall?

I derived that from the founding fathers inputs. It seemed to me they wanted to mitigate any inherent tribute a person may have for England, or any other country. A simple matter of not having to try and figure out where a person's loyalties might sit. If a person has no other country but this one to call home they are less likely to subjugate the interests of this to another.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
I derived that from the founding fathers inputs. It seemed to me they wanted to mitigate any inherent tribute a person may have for England, or any other country. A simple matter of not having to try and figure out where a person's loyalties might sit. If a person has no other country but this one to call home they are less likely to subjugate the interests of this to another.

But you didn't answer questions asked.

I thought the point obvious. Ok, a natural born citizen is one born on the land they are citizen of. Where I read it, or I should say received validation from, lately that is, from the same wikipedia article brit posted. The overseas brand of citizen is derived by operation of law.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
I thought the point obvious. Ok, a natural born citizen is one born on the land they are citizen of. Where I read it, or I should say received validation from, lately that is, from the same wikipedia article brit posted. The overseas brand of citizen is derived by operation of law.

No, not so obvious.
Are you sure about that? What article did Brit post?

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
YUP!



As to how much an impact it would create in their judgment, if any, is irrelevant to the fact it may exist. The president, with all the power and might of our military behind them, is in a position where even the slightest deviation from absolute conviction to this country could have catastrophic results. The higher the office the more restrictive the entry, as it should be.

Agreed.

The process for approval Sotomayer to Supreme Court was rigorous and comprehensive, a Presidential candidate should be moreso. He is supposed to have fidelity to the Constitution. Obama states this during his speech about the nomination of Sotomayer on May 26, 2009.

Back on page3. In there are described a few opinions as to what it should be. I'm of the mind the original intent had some influence from the then current happenings. Being at odds with England and having a lot of people intermingled with the population who may have had softer leanings toward their homeland, it stands to reason there would be some question concerning loyalties.

Taking that as a possible hindrance to political fidelity the framers intended a more restrictive gateway to the occupant of the presidency.