Apr 25 2012
History of the Types of Citizenship in the U.S.
Since this seems to be a highly debated hot topic issue I decided to provide some history and let the debate be sparked. Due to the legal implications of the definitions of the types of citizens we will be focusing only on the Constitution, US law and SCOTUS cases. We will not be relying on written opinions from non-justices.
The Constitution mentions natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and citizens.
* Natural born citizens are recognized as “…any child that is born in the United States or one of its territories…” Children born on US soil to diplomats and other recognized foreign government officials will not receive US citizenship. “If you were born in the U.S., your U.S. citizenship will last your entire life unless you make an affirmative action to give it up, like filing an oath.” Title 8 of the US Code lists the circumstances where a person is considered a natural born citizen.
* Naturalized citizens are
A naturalized citizen is a person who was born an alien, but has lawfully become a citizen of the United States under the U.S. Constitution and laws.
A naturalized citizen has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except is not eligible as president or vice-president of the United States.
• individuals born in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Swain’s Island;
• foreign-born children, under age 18, residing in the U.S. with their birth or adoptive parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization; and
• individuals granted citizenship status by Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).
Under the Constitution natural born citizens and naturalized citizens are US citizens. There are not three types of citizenship, there are two with US citizen being an umbrella category.
Now, on to a review of the Supreme Court cases (details can be found here) mentioning citizenship.
1. US v. Villato, 2 U.S. 370 (1797) – The Court recognizes natural born and naturalized citizens. Natural born is used in the context of general citizenship
2. Dred Scot v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 393 (1856) – During the Slaughter-House Cases the Court acknowledged (albeit not officially) that this case was overruled by the 14th Amendment: “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.”
3. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874) – The Court “equates ‘native-born’ with ‘natural born’ citizen, in the general citizenship context, referencing Article II’s use of the term ‘natural born.’ It notes varying authority as to whether a person born in the US to noncitizen parents may be a ‘natural born citizen’ – but does not address that issue. What is clear, however, is that the Court recognizes two – and only two – types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized.
4. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) – The Court states that there are “…two sources only…” of citizenship – birth and naturalization.
5. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) – The Court “equates a ‘born US citizen’ with a ‘natural born American citizen,’ – many times throughout the opinion, finding ultimately that a child born in the US – even if to Chinese subjects – is a US citizen. Given the context of the full opinion, and the repeated references to the two types of citizenship – natural born and naturalized – the conclusion that Wong Kim Ark was, per the court, a ‘natural born’ US citizen is inescapable.”
6. Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9 (1913) – The Court said: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Once again the Court uses the term “native” interchangeably with “natural.”
7. Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920) – The Court “equates a ‘born US citizen’ with a ‘natural born American citizen,’ and notes that it is undisputed, pursuant to Wong Kim Ark, that a child born in the US – even if to Chinese subjects – is a natural born citizen.”
8. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) – The Court “equates a ‘born US citizen’ with ‘native born’ and ‘natural born’ citizenship.”
9. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944) – The Court recognizes natural born and naturalized citizens. Natural born is used in the context of general citizenship.
10. Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (1949) – The Court recognizes natural born and naturalized citizens. Natural born is used in the context of general citizenship.
11. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) – The Court “equates a ‘native born’ citizen with a “natural born” citizen under Article II – and, again, recognizes only two types of citizenship: natural/native-born, and naturalized.”
12. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) – The Court ‘equates a “native born’ or ‘born’ citizen with ‘natural born’ citizen status. It is worth noting, however, that the Supreme Court did create a third ‘type’ citizenship – applicable to children born abroad to US citizen parents and that the Supreme Court held that such citizenship was not “constitutional citizenship” protected by the 14th Amendment.”
Emphasis mine. The Supreme Court does not define “native born” and “natural born” differently. Since they set the legal precedence for interpreting the law, then they are interchangeable. Also, means politicians such as Rubio can be President or Vice President in this great country!
Let the debate begin!!
DJStrata
There is a long history about the qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency versus what you just described above.
Perhaps we should study about the concerns of the Founding Fathers with respect to the criteria that qualifies a person for the job versus citizenship as well as their parentage and upbringing.
There is that Vattel thing as well as some historical aspects in regards to foreign influences that could affect the decisions made by our US President.
Obama’s foreign influence and upbringing made that very clear and justifies the founders’ concerns about the qualifications of our US president to respect the US Constitution and defend our country,
Obama’s father had a brit citizenship. Obama’s mother supposedly gave up her US citizenship when she moved to Indonesia to live with Lolo because Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship at that time. Obama’s mother did not live in Hawaii long enough once she turned 14 years of age.
There are unique differences, which today’s courts are not recognizing and acknowledging. The court keep looking at the US citizenship rather than the qualifications for the job of the US presidency and so ruled things opposite of the original intent of the Founders.
It’s a complicated issue.
I don’t know about Marco Rubio as I haven’t studied the requirements and qualifications for a VP.
That’s jmho.
Just because the Supreme Court ruled something contradictory to the original intent of the Founders doesn’t mean anything to me because as far as I know, they haven’t ruled anything in regards to the qualifications of the US presidency. They simply ruled on the definition of these various terms. The definition of these various terms, in and of itself, does not determine the qualifications. It’s just one part of the qualifications.
Lurker,
I understand that there are other qualifications to be President. But the Constitution only sets forth a few qualifications. Analyzing the rest of the qualifications is up to the people who vote. The Court can only recognize the Constitutional qualifications.
DJ: Nice to see you jump into this debate. Prepare to take fire. Once Red Team and others see this post you’ll have your words twisted and misconstrued into something you won’t recognize.
Here in the southwest there are people looking for a test case to take to the Supreme Court regarding the validity of citizenship for anchor babies. I’m not an expert but have read the deabtes with interest and everyone agrees that this 14th ammendment based path is a long shot.
The defacto precedent, along with the cases you have cited, is that being born on US soil makes you a natural born citizen. The Wong Kim Ark case gives a potential opening as the parents, Chinese immigrants, were working here legally and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time.
Its a pretty thin argument to hang your hat on. It hasn’t been tested and even if proven correct all it does is codify that Haley, Jindal, Rubio, et al are natural born citizens.
Thanks Layman. And thanks for the heads up. Made sure I got permission from AJStrata to stir the pot on here since I knew what firestorm will hit.
I agree that the defacto precedent is thin, but until its tested that is the standard. And as you pointed out in another post, the lawsuits regarding Obama’s eligibility haven’t changed the standard yet.
There is that nagging 14th amendment issue. There is a tiny provision regarding the qualifications of a presidential candidate. The constitution was written and passed by the founders based on their original intent. There is a very long historical fact about their original intent in what qualifies a person for the White House.
Obama failed the test. Not because of his birth certificate but because of his foreign influence and upbringing.
Yes, the lawsuits regarding Obama’s eligibility have not changed the recent standard. It is because the courts refuse to acknowledge the original intent of the founders. The lawsuits have also changed the scope.
With only a few more months left and assuming Obama will lose, it may become moot unless they want to keep pursuing down this path to ensure it does not happen again.
“The defacto precedent, along with the cases you have cited, is that being born on US soil makes you a natural born citizen. The Wong Kim Ark case gives a potential opening as the parents, Chinese immigrants, were working here legally and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time.”
This applies only to citizenship. It does not address the qualifications of a presidential candidate as per original intent of the founders, which the courts have yet to address.
American Thinker has several articles recently published that addresses these subtle differences.
I understand the want to bring in the original intent of the founder’s but if they wanted it to better understood it would have been better defined in the Constitution. I agree that Obama failed the test regarding foreign influence and his upbringing, but that will never stand up in court as the sole reason to deny him the Presidency.
The only criteria the courts can rule on are:
citizenship (natural born)
age (35)
residency (lived on US soil for at least 14 years)
Everything else is for the populace to be educated enough to give their opinion on.
Very interesting opinion, and I respect it, but there may be a few flaws in the thinking. First, the constitution mentions three categories of citizens, not two.
1. Naturalized, 2 Citizens, 3. Natural born citizens. Clearly if they are all one and the same, the only term that would be used is ‘citizens’.
Let’s look at this little flaw: “* Natural born citizens are recognized as “…any child that is born in the United States or one of its territories…” Children born on US soil to diplomats and other recognized foreign government officials will not receive US citizenship. ”
Hmmm, well a ‘minor’ little flaw here. first it is claimed that the status of the parents doesn’t matter, and then clearly say that it does.
How does that little baby know if it’s parents are diplomats are not? and if the status of the parents are not to be considered.
Just what does this mean? “…any child that is born in the United States” Does it mean? any child that is born in the United States or does it mean something else?
What does this mean? “” Children born on US soil to diplomats”
Does it, or does it not, make a difference to the status of the parents? Suppose the mother is a diplomat and the father is not. suppose the father is a diplomat and the mother is not. Wouldn’t the mother have a valid claim that her child is entitled to be a citizen regardless of the status of the father?
The Supreme court has only made a statement one time about ‘natural born’ citizens and that is in the Minor case where they said it is clear that one born in the US of citizen parents are natural born. It makes no other distinction as to whether if the parents are not citizens as to the status of the child’s citizenship.
This will not be settled until the Supreme court rules on the question of what are the qualifications to be president. Until that happens, Opinions will remain just that: Opinions. I believe mine, others believe theirs. I can only see a valid argument based on my opinion, the same as others see it based upon their opinions.
Intended to point out, but forgot to, that this statement is not actually in the constitution. It is someone’s opinion.
“* Natural born citizens are recognized as “…any child that is born in the United States or one of its territories…” Children born on US soil to diplomats and other recognized foreign government officials will not receive US citizenship. ”
The reason Diplomats are excepted is because legally, Foreign Embassies are considered to be part of the soil of the nation they represent. This is why the Iranian attack on the US embassy, and why any attack on any embassy, is such an outrage. It is, quite literally, an act of war.
Therefore diplomats do NOT reside in their host country and are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. (which is also the reason for the doctrine of diplomatic immunity) They reside in that small, single compound piece of their native country which exists here inside this country, which we call an embassy. They are *Not* under the jurisdiction of the host country because, as I have said, it is an Act of War to even try to send police officers there demanding to enter the compound.
Therefore, no one in an embassy legally resides in this country. Even when they are here, they are in their own country as long as they are living in that embassy, and any excursions are just day trips and tours that do not establish residency.
The other historical exception to the phrase “subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” which was very important in the late 19th century was that this was meant to exclude Native Americans on reservations, who were (mis)governed by the BIA and various tribal authorities. They were NOT allowed to vote in US elections until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and even then Utah did not allow Native Americans to vote until 1956.
The intent was that even though they were born inside the United States, they were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because there were wild indians and who could control them? Now once they were all herded onto reservations under military control that argument got pretty thin, and if you want to say that the only real intent of this phrase was to stop those durn injuns who no one liked from voting, well I really couldn’t argue with you there.
Redteam,
Did you even read the entire post? You just regurgitated your same argument.
Second paragraph: “The Constitution mentions natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and citizens.”
The reason that children of diplomats and other foreign government officials are not “natural born citizens” is because they are not under the jurisdiction of the US. Try arresting a diplomat or their kid.
Many laws allow for exceptions. The caveat with the definition of natural born is “under the jurisdiction of the United States.” Its pretty clear cut.
I dare you to go read those cases. The Court has made a statement about “natural born” citizens in multiple cases.
Also, Title 8 of the US Code was passed to help with the definition. Yet everyone ignores the law and forms an opinion with a major piece of information missing.
Good luck with your argument. Still doesn’t hold water.
WWS, much better response than mine!
one other note on why you have to be so cautious about the idea of “original intent” when discussing citizenship:
You have to remember that there was no concept of Federal Citizenship, as we now conceive of it, in the original 1787 constitution. They didn’t think of the concept the same way as we did; States were the bodies that had rules for citizenship, and if you were a citizen of some particular State, then you were a citizen of the US. That’s why it was so easy for blacks to be considered non-citizens; if they were in slave states that did not recognize the ability of a black person to be a citizen, then of course they could not be US citizens. (which is the heart of the 1857 Dred Scott decision which helped to start our Civil War)
So, when the 1787 Constitution says that “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”…
…Then the original intent can be accurately and more fully stated as “No person except a natural born citizen, AS DEFINED BY THE LAWS OF WHATEVER STATE HE WAS BORN IN”… shall be eligible to the office of President”.
If this person was a black man living in a slave state, he could NEVER be a “natural born citizen” even if his forbears had been living here since the late 1600’s, because his State’s laws had more weight on this matter than any Federal law did.
Our modern concept of Federal Citizenship was *Created* by the 14th Amendment in 1868. And one point above all is clear about the original intent of this amendment: It was created after the Civil War with the full intent of *Changing* the Constitution radically so that the constitutional flaws which led to the Civil War could never be repeated.
Let me interject a point few people today realize: The Constitution before 1860 and after 1868 are *radically* different documents. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments essentially rewrote the relationship between the Federal Government and the people that are governed, and stripped most power from the States. So, talking about the “original intent” of the Founders with respect to any topics covered by these amendments is useless, because the purpose of these amendments (the so-called “Reconstruction Amendments”) was to THROW OUT all of the previous Constitutional Law on these matters and replace it with something new.
The only “Original Intent” that counts, if you want to use it, is the Original Intent of the drafters of the 1868 Reconstruction Amendments, because they overrode *everything* that came before them and created a new Constitutional reality.
The Federal Courts see the “natural born citizen” distinction as a non-issue and a trivial misunderstanding of basic Constitutional Law. The flaw is that the non-judicial people forget that the Amendments, because they come later, carry MORE weight than the original 1787 wording, and in any conflict, the language in an Amendment overrides any earlier constitutional language.
Since the intent of the first clause of the 14th Amendment was to radically rewrite the rules of Citizenship to something different than had existed previously, all earlier language is nullified and only the language of the 14th Amendment governs. Which is:
“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.”
That’s it, that’s the only operative Constitutional language on citizenship anymore. The phrase “natural born citizen” is today nothing but an historical anachronism that has no more meaning and no more force of law. It’s an answer to a trivia question and nothing else.
WWS says:
April 25, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Nice post. Very clear and cuts to the chase.
RT: Usually when you talk about an exception to the rule that is exactly what you are discussing… an exception. I read the language about diplomats’ children as carving out an exception – for the exact reasons given by WWS in his previous post.
To take an exception and then try to twist that exception, in order to confuse the entire issue is really stretching it, and indicates a lack of substance to your argument (IMHO).
Slightly OT, but can anyone say with a straight face that it doesn’t matter who is President if we have the opposite party in the congress?
April 25, 2012
Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/#ixzz1t5feQxOF
Over and over these “rulings” are being made WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. And NOTHING is being done about it.
Nov. 6th, 2012.
DJ, strange, you start out stating ““The Constitution mentions natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and citizens.”
then conclude:”there are not three types of citizenship, there are two with US citizen being an umbrella category.”
huh? The constitution thinks there are 3, you think there are 2. I’ll stick with the constitution on that one.
And I didn’t see US citizen or umbrella mentioned in the constitution.
Yes, I read the whole thing and have read most of those cases and many others that have been brought up and as I said, natural born is only mention in one decision, not many.
WWS, I agree with what you said, but you sure went way out on a tangent. Everyone here understands diplomatic immunity. But I notice in your diatribe you didn’t address this issue: ““…any child that is born in the United States or one of its territories…” Children born on US soil to diplomats and other recognized foreign government officials will not receive US citizenship. ”
If any child born in the US is a citizen without any regard to their parents, then how can anyone be excluded BECAUSE of their parents? You can’t have it both ways.
And then: “…Then the original intent can be accurately and more fully stated as “No person except a natural born citizen, AS DEFINED BY THE LAWS OF WHATEVER STATE HE WAS BORN IN”… shall be eligible to the office of President”. That’s your opinion and you should stick with it and one day someone might give you two cents for it. That’s about what it’s worth.
I have clearly stated more than once that it is my opinion(also worth about 2 cents) that Barack Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are not natural born citizens. There is more legalese that supports that opinion than the opposite. I don’t expect to or desire to change anyone’s mind about that subject. Everyone else is entitled to have their own opinion and just because they can make a reasonable argument for their opinion still does not make it correct. If it were open and shut, then someone such as Obama would welcome the opportunity to go to court and get a ruling that would eliminate the discussion, but that’s clearly not the case. Obama has spent millions to keep the court from even getting a case. But, he is now brave enough to have his attorney state in court that his most recently released birth certificate( which he released) is a fake.
It’s just one of those strange things that someone will take words from the constitution which clearly mentions three types of citizens and then attempt to argue that there are only two types.
Then argue that ANYONE born here WITHOUT regard to their parents situation are citizens, then turn right around and say that BUT (some exclusion for parents) prevents them from being citizens(and note that is not from the constitution (just some judgment in an obscure case. Strange indeed…..
Layman “Usually when you talk about an exception to the rule that is exactly what you are discussing… an exception. I read the language about diplomats’ children as carving out an exception ”
this reminded me of the play I saw where the Dodgers got a triple play while playing the Padres. When the ball was hit, the umpire immediately threw up both hands signalling ‘dead ball’ then immediately followed that with a signal of ‘fair ball’. the catcher then picked up the ball and threw to 3rd starting a triple play. Of course, it was not a triple play, it was a ‘dead ball’. But after ejecting the manager for protesting, MLB reviewed the play and ruled that ‘the call of a fair ball was correct even though the umpire had poor mechanics in calling a dead ball. Obviously MLB didn’t want to ‘take away’ the triple play. The correct call was dead ball, no play.
So, how does that apply. Let’s say the law is that ‘anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen without regard to their parents status’ that’s it, no if, ands, or but. then someone decides that of course if the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US then they are not citizens. Wouldn’t the law make it immaterial whether the parents were diplomats or not? This is the case we have where clearly Rubio has historically said he isn’t running for VP because he knows he is not eligible, but now he’s seeing where people are saying ‘we want you, constitution be damned’ and he’s thinking maybe they’ll overlook the little ‘technicality’.
RT: Quit putting words in other people’s mouths. Rubio has never said he would not run for VP because he knows he is ineligble. That is your interpretation – your words. In fact Rubio has very specifcally stated in the past that he would not run because he thinks he needs more experience. His words.
I think he’d be a bad choice because 1) it raises the flip-flop issue and 2) it takes away all the comments we had 4 years ago with another man of little experience.
Still, if Romney wants him, and he “accepts the call to duty,” and says he’ll get more experience as Veep, then I doubt a lot of people will go after him. Especially if he points out that two years in the Senate was enough experience to be President, so it ought to be good enough for Veep,