<p>ilovedcollege,
That’s not answering my question. </p>
<p>motherbear332’s statement tells me there are countries where one can be born but not automatically be a citizen of that country (as if they have to apply for citizenship after a certain amount of time??). Maybe I misunderstood her statement.</p>
<p>When I lived in Norway, I knew a few Americans that had babies within that country. I assumed they would automatically be considered Norwegian citizens having been born there. Obviously, the parents considered them American and (I’m guessing) applied
to the US for whatever paperwork they needed to have their children be American
citizens. I did that for my daughter, though as a Canadian citizen.</p>
<p>Charles Black, a prominent Constitutional law scholar in the 50s-60s, used to say that there was a perfectly good argument that “natural born citizen” meant no caesarians. A proud Texan, he also used to remind people that the Constitution was written by Southerners, and that it might mean nothing more than it means in “These are the best natural born ribs Ah ever et!”</p>
<p>It’s not obvious to me that it means U.S. citizen at birth, by the way. It must have been the 1840s or later before we had a President who had been a U.S. citizen at birth.</p>
<p>Look at the wikipedia article for Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil). It has a map showing which countries grant citizenship based on place of birth. Almost all of the countries that do are in the western hemisphere. </p>
<p>European countries often have an expedited way for children who grew up there to become citizens when they come of age. But it isn’t automatic. Not all even offer that.</p>
<p>This was a controversial issue in Germany right after the Soviet Union fell apart–there were ethnic Germans living in the Soviet Union whose ancestors had left Germany many generations earlier. Because of this ancestry, they were allowed to move to Germany and were considered German citizens. On the other hand, Germany is full of ethnic Turks who were born there and have never lived anywhere else who are not allowed to become citizens.</p>
<p>Most countries in the world use [jus</a> sanguinis](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis][i]jus”>Jus sanguinis - Wikipedia) as the primary means to determine citizenship by birth, meaning citizenship by bloodline or descent from a citizen. Such countries typically do not automatically grant citizenship to persons born there from non-citizen parents.</p>
<p>The United States, Canada, and Mexico, among other countries, use [jus</a> soli](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli][i]jus”>Jus soli - Wikipedia) as the primary means to determine citizenship by birth, meaning citizenship by being born on the soil. In such countries, passing citizenship by bloodline or descent is often possible, but limited.</p>
<p>The correct answer is: No one knows. The Supreme Court has never addressed the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ and no statute has ever defined it either. </p>
<p>Congress felt compelled to pass a special statute stating that John McCain was a ‘natural born citizen’ and thus entitled to be on the ballot for president.</p>
<p>Good point. That would seem to make the statute defining who is a “citizen of the United States at birth” pretty much irrelevant to determining who is a “natural born citizen.” Unless we think Presidents Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, Jackson, and W.H. Harrison all held office unlawfully, because none of those estimable fellows was a citizen of the United States at birth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which of course was pretty much a meaningless symbolic gesture because such a statute is not binding on the federal courts. The Constitution trumps any federal statute, and if the courts think the constitutional term requires a different result, the courts’ reading of the Constitution prevails over the statute.</p>
<p>Seems to me the only way we’ll ever know what “natural born citizen” means is if someone is actually elected President and there’s a legal challenge to that person’s taking office based on the claim that he or she is not a “natural born citizen.” At that point we’ll have a full-blown constitutional crisis on our hands. But you can’t get it into court any earlier than that. What Congress says about it is pretty much irrelevant, the federal courts can’t issue advisory opinions in advance, and there are no constitutional qualifications for someone merely to run for the office; that’s just not addressed at all in the Constitution, and the framers probably didn’t even contemplate presidential campaigns as we know them today. It’s only at the point someone is actually elected and about to take office that there’s a legal issue that could be heard in the courts, and it’s only the courts—ultimately the Supreme Court—that can finally decide the issue.</p>
<p>So OP, tell your friends that their son born overseas CAN run for President. But no one knows whether he can SERVE as President. That can’t be decided until he’s elected, unless someone from a similarly ambiguous category is elected first.</p>
<p>It has always been my understanding that there is a distinction between being a US citizen by birth (which includes US citizens born abroad to US citizen parents), </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>US citizens who are eligible for the presidency (individuals born in territory that at that time was US territory, or that subsequently became US territory).</p>
<p>It never remotely occurred to me that Happykid who was born abroad could run for President!</p>
<p>This is interesting. My experience is the complete opposite. It never remotely occcured to me that bearcub332, who was also born abroad, could not run for president. I was quite annoyed at his third grade teacher who told the class that only people born in the US could become president. </p>
<p>I don’t see why “natural born citizen” would mean anything but “citizen at birth”. I think the reason so many believe otherwise is that when most people think of US citizenship, they think “born in the US” or “naturalized”. The situation of a very small number of babies born to US citizens abroad just doesn’t come to mind. If you only have those two choices, you end up with “born in the US” = “natural born citizen”, but those are not the only two choices.</p>
<p>I was born abroad to American parents, and I have never been able to find a definitive answer to whether I am eligible to run for President. In fact, growing up I was told by most people that I was not eligible.</p>
<p>It is my understanding that happymom is right: what constitutes citizenship at birth and what constitutes eligibility to run for President are two different things. It is also my understanding that by virtue of his birthplace, it was never clear whether John McCain was eligible to run for President, but that our federal laws allow Congress to confirm the eligibility of a candidate by vote, which is why they did that for John McCain before the election. </p>
<p>We had a conversation about this on cc a couple of years ago and there is a poster here who is a Con law expert who laid it all out - I’ve forgotten her name but it will come to me eventually.</p>
<p>What about someone born in a U.S. territory (or if Obama had been born in Hawaii before 1960)? They are U.S. citizens at birth, are they not? Theoretically, then we could have a Spanish-speaking president born and raised in Puerto Rico.</p>
<p>No, the Constitution doesn’t say that. It gives each House of Congress power to adjudicate the elections and qualifications of its own members. It allows Congress to override state laws on the time, place, and manner of congressional elections. It empowers Congress to “make rules for the government,” but it is doubtful this extends to elections and qualifications for the office of President. It empowers Congress to name both the time when members of the Electoral College are chosen, and the day on which they cast their votes. The 12th, 20th, and 22nd Amendments add more procedures and limitations on the presidency (including a two-term limit), and authorize the House of Representatives to choose the President if the Electoral College is deadlocked. But nowhere does the Constitution empower Congress to decide who meets the constitutional requirement that the President be a “natural born citizen.” </p>
<p>Of course, Congress can enact a statute purporting to declare John McCain or anyone else eligible, but that’s just an empty piece of verbiage, because if the issue were ever to get into court and the court construed that constitutional term differently, it’s the court’s view of the constitution, not Congress’s, that would trump. </p>
<p>And since the courts have never spoken on the subject, anyone who claims to know what “natural born citizen” means as a legal matter is just blowing smoke.</p>
<p>how can ‘natural born citizen’ be anything other than ‘citizen at birth’? Is it really more likely that ‘natural born citizen’ means ‘born in U.S. territory’?</p>
<p>It’s likely that ‘natural born citizen’ is the opposite of ‘naturalized’ so McCain and our born-abroad daughter were U.S. citizens at birth, though, oddly, our D professes no interest in becoming President (go figure).</p>
<p>What about our first few presidents? They could not have been natural born citizens of the United States because there was no United States to be a citizen of at the time of their birth.</p>
<p>I wonder whether anyone made a fuss about that.</p>
<p>My husband was born in Thailand. He has a “Certification of Birth” issued by the Department of State and signed by the U.S. ambassador to Thailand…attached to that is a translation of his Thai birth certificate. His father was a U.S. Embassy employee. It wasn’t my husband’s fault his parents were posted overseas. </p>
<p>DH isn’t at ALL interested in being President. Every so often when he is disgruntled about something he threatens to activate his dual citizenship and move to Thailand.</p>
<p>I always understood a Natural Born Citizen to be one who was born in the US, including military bases, embassies and territories, to 2 parents who were citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This was to ensure that no president would owe allegiance to another country or king.</p>
<p>Those born to one US citizen and those born abroad would automatically be US citizens, even if considered citizens of their foreign-born parent’s birth country, or citizens of their birth country, but not Natural Born.</p>
<p>If any state enacts an eligibility requirement to be put on the ballot, the SC will have to define the term Natural Born Citizen before Obama can be put on that state’s ballot in 2012 due to his father’s birthplace and not to his own.</p>