Maggie's Farm

What, in your opinion, is the difference between a "birthright citizen and a "natural-born citizen"?

Or is there any difference at all?

RE: #1.2.3 Zachriel on 2024-01-11 20:35

That is incorrect, The subject is the meaning of the term "natural-born citizen" as distinct from "citizen."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898 was soley about "citizen" and contained a lengthy discussion and exegesis on the matter. it only tangentially mentioned the term "natural-born citizen" in recognition of a distinction regarding the quality of the two.

Anon on 2024-01-11 18:35 "The Supreme court has never ruled on it ( natural-born citizen clause)" is implicitly correct.

As far as we can tell. the closest it has come to rendering such an opinion was in Minor v. Happersett, in which it stated:

"... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."


So to paraphrase: A "natural-born citizen" is a citizen who was born (1) in the country (2) to a mother who is a citizen of the country and (3) to a father who is a citizen of the country. There remains some doubt as to whether a citizen who lacks one or two legs of that stable stool can be a "natural-born citizen." The term has not yet been sufficiently defined under the law. Om the other end of the spectrum. it seems clear that a "naturalized citizen" cannot be a "natural-born citizen."

In the gray area, where Nikki Haley resides, lie only opinions that cannot be regarded as expositive.

#1.2.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2024-01-12 08:21 (Reply)

[i]"We would note that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, and he served two terms, seemingly settling the issue as a practical matter."[i/]


We disagree.

The matter has been [i]mooted[i/] as regards Obama, since he is debarred from holding the office of President again.

But it does not follow that just because A (may have) skirted around a valid rule without consequence, that the rest of the alphabet is therefore free to ignore the same valid rule with impunity forever.

[i]"it was never doubted"[i/] that a citizen born in the country of two parents who are citizens of the country at the time of his/her birth is a [i]"natural-born citizen."[i/] A citizen born under different conditions rests somewhere on a continuum of doubt.

A stool with three legs can be presumed to be stable and suited to its intended purpose. A stool with only two legs, less so. And a stool with only one, even lesser still. And, of course, a stool with no legs is not a stool at all. Any of these, taken individually, might ultimately prove to be adequate to the task. Or not.

When casting our vote, we prefer the safety and assurance of a stool with three legs.

#1.2.3.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2024-01-12 13:52 (Reply)

...as Obama served two terms, it strongly implies the issue is settled...as it would mean voiding Obama's entire presidency."


You are incorrect.

We don't settle matters of interpretation of our Constitution by implication or by evading the matter due to "lack of standing" or other such legerdemain. Nor by closing our eyes, clamping our ears shut, stamping our feet and bleating loudly.

The useful term "No Person except a natural born Citizen..." is still active in our Constitution. Until the U.S. Supreme Court issues an opinion that fully defines the term, or an Amendment is enacted that defines it, we are left with a partial definition:

"it was never doubted" that a citizen born in the country of two parents who are citizens of the country at the time of his/her birth is a "natural-born citizen."

A citizen born under different conditions rests somewhere on a continuum of doubt, your baseless objection notwithstanding.

The matter is NOT "settled", it is kicked down the road.