Natural Born Citizenship: What Does It Mean?

We the people American Constitution with feather penWTPOTUS – by Miri

Natural born citizen. Our Constitution requires presidents to be natural born citizens. “NO PERSON” can become president unless that person is a natural born citizen. Let’s parse the phrase.

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;

The Law of Nations states that natural born citizens

are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) concurs that there is no doubt that

all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also,

and that those children are natural born citizens.  Their citizenship is the naturalresult of Natural Law, as delineated by Vattel. As explained here:

It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.

For that reason, if for no other, the SCOTUS has stated that there are doubts about the natural born citizenship status of children who were born under other circumstances (e.g., to only one citizen parent, or within the U.S. to non-citizen parents).

The naturalness of natural born citizenship comes from the fact that the status is obvious. A child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents is by nature a citizen. The status of natural born citizen is, therefore, an inherited, obvious trait, if you will.

Papoose, one of our regulars, made a good analogy:

A natural born apple is not part banana. Its impossible.

Indeed it is impossible. That’s the problem with children born on the soil to parents both of whom are not citizens, or children born outside the USA to parents both of whom are not citizens or one of whom is a citizen but did not meet certain legal requirements set down by Congress. They are all partiallysomething else.

For example, Barack Hussein Obama II was born with two citizenships (provided that his biography is as he has told us): He was a natural born British subject at birth. He was also a U.S. citizen, if he was born in Hawaii when it was a state and if his mother was a U.S. citizen. Since no one has ever seen his real, original birth certificate in paper form, the facts are not yet in evidence.

Similarly, Senator Ted Cruz was born with foreign citizenship, because he was born in Canada. Cruz admits that he is not a natural born U.S. citizen under the provisions of the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land:

I am a born citizen of the United States by statute: Title 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g).

How can either man be a “naturally” born U.S. citizen? The natural born citizen status is one that’s obvious. A natural born citizen is not created by a statute. How can a person who was born into the citizenship of another country be also a natural born citizen of the USA?

Taking Papoose’s analogy off on a tangent:  a pluot is a hybrid fruit created by crossing plum trees with apricot trees. A pluot is part apricot, part plum:

Pluots - Copy

How can a pluot be a natural born plum? It cannot.

Nor can a citizen who has inherited a foreign citizenship, and/or who has dual citizenship at birth, be a natural born citizen of the USA.

We also have the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to consider. That amendment addresses two types of citizens, born citizens and naturalizedcitizens:

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.

Note that the 14th Amendment makes no reference to the citizenship of the parents of persons born within the United States, other than the implications of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

The 14th Amendment does not qualify “citizen”; thus, it refers to both born and naturalized citizens–simple citizenship, that is. It does not define or redefine natural born citizenship.

There are born citizens and there are naturalized citizens, so long as both types are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Children born abroad to citizen parents (or to one citizen parent) are merely children who were naturalized at birth by an Act of Congress.

Born citizens and naturalized citizens are both types of citizens. An “anchor baby” is, in some cases and according to a SCOTUS decision, arguably, a born citizen. And yet anchor babies are not natural born citizens, being born to parents who are not U.S. citizens–and perhaps who are not even legal residents of the USA–and who owe allegiance to a foreign power. By natural law, anchor babies do not owe sole allegiance to the USA, and their parents, in most cases, owe noallegiance to the USA.

How can those facts be made to conform with the intentions of the Founders, when they devised the eligibility requirements for Commander in Chief?

Is there a third type of citizen? I would argue yes. That would be the special type of born citizen: The natural born citizen.

Note that there is no hyphen between the adjectives natural and born. Although many sources cleverly add a hyphen, one does not exist in the written text of the Constitution.

Let’s consider that “born Citizen” is a compound noun:

A compound noun is a noun that is made with two or more words. A compound noun is usually [noun + noun] or [adjective + noun], but there are other combinations … . It is important to understand and recognize compound nouns. Each compound noun acts as a single unit and can be modified by adjectives and other nouns.

There are three forms for compound nouns:

1. open or spaced – space between words (tennis shoe)

2. hyphenated – hyphen between words (six-pack)

3. closed or solid – no space or hyphen between words (bedroom)

If “born Citizen”, as referenced in the Constitution, is a compound noun, then the adjective natural further refines the meaning of the phrase natural born-citizen (hyphen added for illustration).

An adjective modifies nouns and sometimes other adjectives. There are normal adjectives and then there are compound adjectives:

Compound adjectives, like normal adjectives, modify noun phrases. In the phrases heavy metal detector and heavy-metal detector, thelatter is a compound adjective because the modifier is made of two words used in combination.

Note that not all sequences of adjectives (or other types of words) modifying a noun phrase are necessarily parts of one or more compound adjectives. Heavy metal detector and heavy-metal detector refer to subtly different things: in the first, heavymodifies metal detector, to describe a heavy device that detects metals, while in the second example, heavy modifies metalwhich together modify detector, to describe a device that detects heavy metals.

Therefore, the lack of a hyphen in the original written text between the wordsnatural and born appears to indicate that the words do not comprise a compound adjective that modifies the word citizen.

If the words natural born were to comprise a compound adjective (such as heavy-metal in the example above), then natural-born would describe a citizen who wasborn by a natural process, not an unnatural process, such as through Caesarean section.

Instead, the word natural modifies the entire compound noun: born citizen. And so there are born citizens as well as the special class of born citizens, which are the natural born citizens, who derive their natural born status from nature–meaning it is inherited and intrinsic, something which cannot be bestowed or removed by any Act of Congress (or through any interpretation orre-interpretation by the SCOTUS: Saying doesn’t make it so. The SCOTUS could declare that a pluot is an apricot; but a pluot, intrinsically, will still not be an apricot!)

The history of the phrase seems to indicate that the Founders did believe that anatural born citizen belonged to a special class of born citizen:

An earlier draft of the document read as follows:
“No Person except a Born Citizen 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.”

“Born Citizen” simply means born on U.S. soil—without regard to the citizenship of one’s parents.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote:

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

Subsequently, the draft was changed to read natural born Citizen, to ensure that any future presidential candidate was born a citizen and was also reared in sole allegiance to the USA, by virtue of having parents who were also citizens, both of whom had sole allegiance to this country.

We know what the phrase natural born Citizen meant to the Founders:

Born in the country of parents who are its citizens.

For the paramount purpose of national security, it is clear who is eligible and who is not eligible for the presidency. Only a Constitutional Amendment can extend eligibility to persons other than natural born citizens. That’s the right way to change this qualification, and only if We the People decide that we want to change it.

Incrementalism is not the way forward. Flouting the Constitution is not the way forward. Thumbing one’s nose at the “birthers” is not the way forward.

Only a Constitutional Amendment can change the Supreme Law of the Land.

Afterword: Senator Ted Cruz’s father did not become a U.S. citizen until the year 2005, when his son was 35 years old, coincidentally the age Ted Cruz must have attained in order to meet another eligibility requirement for the presidency.  How can it be said that Ted Cruz was raised “with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States,” when his father remained a citizen of another country throughout Ted Cruz’s childhood and early adulthood?

20 thoughts on “Natural Born Citizenship: What Does It Mean?

  1. What really disturbs me about this, is the people who said Obama shouldn’t be president because of this, but say Ted Cruz should be. This tells me that there’s a lot of intellectually dishonest people out there who really don’t care about the truth, they are doing this for the “left/right” thing. It really makes me sick, the people who were screaming about Obama, and with full knowledge Ted Cruz ADMITS, OK? he ADMITS he was born in Canada, and these DOLTS who were against Obama are saying it’s OK for Ted Cruz. I can’t even put into words how much I hate hypocrites like that. They disgust me, and they’re out there.

    Orly Taitz: remember her? Why is no one talking about her? She had a problem with Obama being president because of not being a natural born citizen. WHERE IS ORLY “ISRAEL” TAITZ?

    Did you ever see the clip of a major news channel going to interview her, I think it was MSNBC, and they said, “AND NOW TO TEL AVIV, WE HAVE ORLY TAITZ”. Ummmm….what was she doing in Tel Aviv???

    Disregard everything in this video, except pay special close attention 10 seconds into the video, the host says, JOINING US FROM TEL AVIV IS ORLY TAITZ.

    ********** WHY WAS SHE IN TEL AVIV, ISRAEL ???????????? ***********

    Can someone seriously please give me a reason she was in ISRAEL???

    1. Check her background, Big Dan. She’s pretty heavy on the matzo and the policy of “the best opposition is the opposition in which you control.” Many could have been focused on by the media to bring the birther evidence forward but it was she they focused on, virtually silencing everyone else. Same as Arpaio.

  2. All this talk about the meaning of “natural born citizen” is Commie talk designed to twist the mind and distort the meaning like everything else.

    The only thing you or anyone else needs to know is that the truth is that “natural born citizen” of a country means anyone BORN IN THAT COUNTRY. PERIOD!

    If you weren’t born in that country or born on that country’s soil, you’re not a “natural born citizen”. PERIOD! Plain and simple. End of story.

    Enough with the COMMIESPEAK!!!

  3. Well this comment won’t be to popular but the truth never is. It doesn’t matter wether Ocancer is natural born. What matters is that he is “naturalized”. Look at the 14 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.

    What is a “naturalized citizen”? A naturalized citizen is a citizen of the United States. It’s right there in black and white. Let’s look at the applicable part of the constitution:

    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;

    So if Ocancer is a naturalized citizen and a naturalized citizen is a citizen of the United States then per the Constitution he can be President and so can Ted Cruz.
    I don’t like it any better than anybody else does but there it is. The Constitution and Bill of Rights (common law) was thrown out in 1938 anyways, but that’s nothing that some bullets can’t solve.

      1. When it pertains to who can be President, natural born and naturalized are the same thing…thanks to the 14th amendment. It’s right there in plain english.

        1. The 14th Amendment is a running violation of the people’s Bill of Rights, as it seizes us and changes our natural status without due process of the law and without any grant of the power from the people to the government to do so. It is thus null and void. You cannot change the meaning of words, hence saying something unnatural is natural does not make it so, as the author clearly put forth.

          1. Hey I’m with you and everybody else here on that Henry. Whoever wrote the 14th amendment should have been shot for treason.
            Just so nobody misunderstands me…if anyone was looking for a reason, among the myriad of reasons, to shoot some traitors all they would have to do is read and understand the 14th amendment. according to it, a sherpa from Tibet could come to the States, become a naturalized citizen and run for president.
            Arnold Schwarzenegger could be President. And please God don’t anybody tell him. The first thing he would do is call DARPA and have them unleash the terminator robots.

        2. Actually, it is not the same.

          “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;”

          meant that the Founders and the people of the newly founded States, who were citizens of the United States AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION of the Constitution, could also run for the office of president, since they had all been born subjects of the British Crown. That’s it. It is even explained in the Federalist Papers, since people who did not understand words then any more than they do now had the same questions.

          The 14th Amendment DOES NOT change the requirements to be president. It simply redefines who is considered a citizen of the USA. Naturalization IS NOT the same as natural born. It is a violation of Natural Law, but that is another story.

          The fact is, Cruz is no more eligible to run than obama was, but he’s getting a pass because he is a “conservative.” It’s tit for tat and being directed from the offices of the same communists who gave us the Bushes, the Clintons, and the rest of the mess we’re in. It’s coming from the same plan that was formulated and put into effect more than 100 years ago, which gave us the “lend-lease program” to ensure that the global communists had power on par with the only super-power at the time: the USA.

          Why aren’t people in open insurrection? Well, it’s called the “idiot box” for a reason.

          1. I would have to agree and then respectfully disagree. Natural born and naturalized are not the same,EXCEPT, when applied to the eligibility of presidency.
            The 14 Amendment does redefine a citizen of the U.S. by lumping naturalized citizens in with natural born citizens. If the commies who wrote it didn’t want naturalized citizens to be citizens of the U.S. then why is the word naturalized used? As a matter of fact, if they didn’t want to redefine citizen of the U.S., then why did they bother writing the 14th amendment in the first place?
            The founding fathers didn’t write the 14th amendment, communist traitors did. And when they apply it to the Constitution, they interpret it to mean that anybody and their grandma can be President.

  4. This argument is mute to me in as much as the President is more likened to a figurehead that has no power but does the bidding of his master. I fail to see why it would matter who takes the chair. If the ONE chosen by the Cabal to sit in this desired chair is an idiot would it matter? I mean look closely at George Bush. He did a great job for the Cabal and he was a certified idiot. It matters not if you vote for you are only validating the choice of the Masters. The whole thing is from start to finish is a waste of time even discussing it.

    As far as the Constitution goes it no longer exists, It is only a damn piece of paper if people are not going to STAND for it. We have moved to a dictatorship we just haven’t been able to admit it as of yet but soon we shall.

  5. Thanks for clearing that up, Hatr.

    A gang of lawyers can twist anything that was once obvious. Ted Cruz CANNOT run. End of story.

  6. Oh yes, the “twisters of truth” are out in droves wordsmithing their way to another case of “pull the wool over your eyes” trick. A blatant lie, no matter how many times it is repeated, is still a blatant lie.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *