Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Natural-born-citizen clause (United States). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposal to delete section on "Prominent Elected Officials ... ineligible to hold the Presidency"

This section is inherently subjective and suffers from recentism. It has also proven to be liable to vandalism and should be deleted. Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Properly handled, this sort of material can be informative, and readers will be genuinely interested in it. Yes, this section may be liable to vandalism, but I don't see that argument as particularly compelling, because the rest of the article has also attracted original research and fringe theories regarding the meaning of "natural born". Perhaps the section should be restricted to include — with appropriate sources required — only people who (but for being naturalized) would have been in the official line of succession to the Presidency (such as Kissinger and Albright); naturalized people who have been prominently mentioned in the mainstream media as potential candidates for President in connection with discussion of proposed constitutional amendments (such as Schwarzenegger, Lantos, and Granholm); and perhaps also anyone who has actually tried to run for President but was thrown off the ballot by legal action in some state(s) because he/she was naturalized (if any such people exist). Richwales (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. There's really no point to the section. A better version would be something along these lines, which I've written from memory but which I'm sure could be properly sourced: "There have been occasional calls for the amendment of this provision of the Constitution, for example to provide that anyone would be eligible after being a citizen for 35 years. Such proposals drew increased attention with the rise to political prominence of Arnold Schwarzenegger, an Austrian-born movie star who was elected Governor of California in 2003. Some supporters of the change, not wishing it to be seen solely as a vehicle for Schwarzenegger (a Republican), pointed out that it would also include Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic Governor of Michigan, who was born in Canada." That's what readers need to know; they don't need a comprehensive list of everyone from 2008 forward who served in Congress, the Cabinet, or as a Governor without being a natural-born citizen. (For that matter, why only those from 2008 forward? Why not include John Peter Altgeld, etc.? A truly comprehensive list would be much longer but equally pointless.) JamesMLane t c 04:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Move this material to a separate article, linked from this one.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete The issue of cabinet officers who are ineligible to succeed the president is handled in United States presidential line of succession. As for the rest, it's a random collection of individuals. The Schwarzenegger issue might be mentioned in the text due to proposals to change the U.S. Constitution but even that is only tangentially related to the topic of this article, which is not "eligibility for U.S. President". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Case law

Because of events related to the 2008 U.S. presidential election there has been widespread blogging on the issue of natural born citizenship and online discussion of legal precedents like these. This has resulted in novel interpretations and subsequent edits of this article. I have removed one such edit. The replacement entry I wrote is constructed primarily out of text quoted from the Supreme Court opinion and IMO aligns more with accepted interpretation of the decision in this particular case as it applies to this article on Natural-Born Citizenship. I have edited the text for Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) as follows:

"The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States'."

Bluespaceoddity2 (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Goldwater

The article clearly stated that Arizona was US territory before becoming a US state. Therefore anyone born in Arizona (i.e. on US territory) and being subject to US jurisdiction was a natural born citizen. Goldwater had no place there. Therefore deleted. —85.179.128.122 (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually my understand is that this was a matter of some confusion and dispute. And even for some previous presidents who had been born in similar circumstances. According to information I have, it was not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New information about President Chester Arthur

The lawyer of the case the Supreme Court might take has released research stating that Arthur lied about the circumstances of his father because at the time of Chester's birth,his father was not a citizen. Thus leaving him ineligible for Vice President.

Other people during his time had alledged that Chester was actually born overseas but he was not. His refutation of that falsehood deflected scrunity of his father, who he had lied about in order to have people believe that his father was a US Citizen when Chester was born.

Why would he do that if his father's nationality didn't matter? He did it because his father's nationality was critical.

Donofrio writes , in part at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
Is this the twilight zone?
William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Chester Arthur lied about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.
And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means.
Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.
And it’s no precedent to follow.

We shall see. VP1974 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

More from the fantasy world of those who think that somehow they can use the Supreme Court to steal another Presidential election. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could say that there's a bias concerning the argued implications for this year's campaign, but the facts are the facts: It's clear now that Chester Arthur's father William Arthur was naturalized a US citizen on August 31, 1843, as you can see on a copy of the original document here. Since Chester Arthur was born in 1829 or—as he claimed for some reason (one biographer said "vanity")—in 1830, it's absolutely safe to say that Arthur was born as the son of a US citizen (mother) and a non-US citizen (Irish father). Nobody seems to have realized this when he ran for (Vice-)President, because everyone was preoccupied with the unfounded, but popular rumors that he was born abroad. But in any case he was born on US soil, so an inclusion of Chester Arthur in the paragraph on born abroad is irrelevant, because all there was to it were rumors. But I suggest an alternative paragraph with Presidential candidates and Presidents born as the sons of a non-US parent: These should be Arthur and Obama. In any case, the parallels between the two are quite eerie. —85.179.138.99 (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If the court makes a ruling, it could be worth mentioning somewhere. Any bets on the court deciding that Arthur is no longer a President? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

;D The court will probably not decide to hear the case. A New York Times reporter has apparently received word from sources inside the SCOTUS that the case has been dismissed on Friday based on the lack of standing. Someone also wrote that this was also mentioned on CSPAN. A statement will be issued tomorrow. Furthermore, Arthur's case is (a) not part of the writ, and (b) not applicable as precedent, because Arthur's birth to a non-US citizen father remained unknown—maybe Arthur even tried to conceal it—, while Obama has openly stated on his website that he had been a British-US dual citizen at birth. In any case, Arthur is a fait accompli and will for all eternity remain President, whether legitimate or not. The latter is not for me to decide, but it's a great new discovery that he was actually born to a non-US citizen father. The date on his father's naturalization record clearly proves it. So it's irrelevant what the court decides. As a historical fact it should be included. —85.179.138.99 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be included, if consensus determines it's appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Does it mean that you would rank whatever WP consensus there might be as something higher and more valuable than a historical reality, even if the consensus ignored that reality? (Just wondering.) —85.179.138.99 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not every "historical reality" fits wikipedia. It has to be both verifiable and notable. If I got a parking ticket yesterday, that's a "historical reality", but that doesn't make it notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:) Okay, agreed. In Arthur's case I see notability (biographical information, especially when considering those rumors about his citizenship) and verifiability (certificate of naturalization). How the facts are to be interpreted in light of his actions, I'll leave to the experts. —85.179.138.99 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[Irrelevant comments about an insignificant issue removed.] Bluespaceoddity2 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correcting statements no one has made. No one is suggesting that Arthur concealed the birth place of his father. Donfrio suggests that what he did do was ensure no one would suspect that his father was not yet a citizen at the time of Arthur's birth. The father was born in Ireland in 1796. He moved to Canada in 1818-19. His US-born wife elopes with him in 1821. He moved to the US between 1822 - 1824. The son was born on 5 Oct 1829. The father was naturalized on 31 Aug 1843. Where you quote Arthur saying his dad was from Ireland you should have kept quoting: "“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”" This is a lie. He did not come to the US at 18.. he was well in his 20s and he was already married before he moved to the US. He also told other lies that gave the impression that his dad was in the US long enough to become a citizen before Chester's birth. There is no "Conspiracy Yarn." The factual info I asserted here comes from the link at the top of this section. You can find the Documentation there. VP1974 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Arthur made no statement inconsistent with the fact that his father was not a citizen when Chester Arthur was born. Whether he lied (and I cannot think why he would have) or just didn't know the accurate details is irrelevant because he never said his father was a citizen, nor said anything that would lead anyone to infer that he was a citizen. Arthur and his father were estranged and Arthur may well not have even known when his father naturalized. In any case, based on Lynch v. Clarke, Arthur would have reasonably concluded that he was eligible in either case, and IMO demolishes the whole lie/cover-up theory.Kevin (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it fair to say that a modern-day smear campaign is being waged against Chester A. Arthur. Aurthur, a New Yorker, may reasonably have known of the often cited case (including citation by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) of Lynch v. Clarke (New York 1884) which said "The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not." ^[1]. See also Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858).Kevin (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I intend to delete the text on Chester Arthur: "his natural born citizenship status at birth is unclear, because he was born before the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment that provided any person born on United States territory and subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a U.S. citizen, and because he held at least Irish citizenship jus sanguinis through his father" unless someone supports this assertion with a reference. I point to the citation from Lynch v. Clarke above as ample justification that the text to be removed is false on its face.Kevin (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Just a reminder, for those who may not be aware, that Obama-related issues are being covered in a separate article at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Coverage of that issue probably constitutes undue weight in this article, so editors interested in this issue should look at the specifically Obama-related article. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

I've just removed these comments from the area relating to Barack Obama and the challenge of his presidency, as it posts rumor as if it is fact, while some of it is outright false and has been proven as such.

His campaign released a certificate of live birth, which was subsequently proven to be a forgery. (Supposedly proven to be a forgery by biased right wing websites who supposedly hired experts. Those "experts" claim to refute the authenticity of a document using a compressed JPG image, not the original document or a high resolution original image. It is not possible to authoritatively authenticate an image without the high resolution original, and it is arguably impossible to authenticate a document without the original paper copy of said document. The JPG they've obtained from Obama's website is nothing but a reduced copy of a higher resolution image, and with the reduction comes changes in formatting that can deteriorate the image, consistent with the "issues" that the "experts" claim shows that this was a digital forgery. This is not the only picture of this birth certificate either, as there have been others posted by Factcheck. Further, the State of Hawaii has stated that they hold the original birth certificate, in an effort to settle these rumors. This statement insinuates that the copy Obama holds is also certified authentic. And it's unlikely that the state would put itself on the line to claim this if the document was forged or altered and the information on the online images of Obama's birth certificate were not correct.)

He refuses to release his vault copy. (Speculation. It could also be argued that he refuses to give conspiracy theorists filing frivolous lawsuits the time of day for an issue that those with standing - GOP, McCain, Clinton - have no interest in pursuing, arguably because they know there is no truth to these rumors and thus they have no case.)

His grand-mother has stated on record that she was at this birth in Kenya. (Rumor. The claims that his grandmother stated this revolve around an interview with her where she spoke in her native language - one of hundreds of dialects in Kenya. Biased right wing websites claim she is saying that Obama was born in Kenya. Other interpreters have claimed that what she is saying is actually "Barack is a son of this village" or a "decendent of this village" not actually that he was physically born there.)

Furthermore, he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and raised as an Indonesian citizen. (Rumor. First of all, his years of greatest intellectual development were spent in Hawaii with his grandparents from the age of 10 until he went to college, so he was raised as an American by American grandparents in Hawaii. There is no proof of the adoption, and even if he were adopted, it has no effect on his status as a natural born citizen. Citizenship must be renounced deliberately and voluntarily. Obtaining citizenship in a country that is not an enemy combatant of the US is not an automatically expatriating act. And a 6-year-old child can neither deliberately nor voluntarily expatriate.)

Barak Obama traveled to Pakistan on a passport that has not been identified as US, possibly Indonesian. (Rumor. This is based in the false assumption that US citizens were banned from Pakistan in the early 80's. This is not true, cannot be found on any reputable website, and like most of what is written here, has only propagated among the many right wing websites that pass these rumors between each other.)

Barak has refused to release his college records. (What is the relevance of this to the topic of natural born citizenship? A reference to any information indicating that he refused to release these records would be very helpful, as I have seen no evidence that it was ever requested or denied. And additionally, can we show precedent where this is a standard practice of prior candidates, or that anyone else in the 2008 election released their college records?)

Some suggest that Barak Obama registered as a foreign (Indonesian) student and received financial aid to attend US universities. (More rumor that is connected to the Lolo adoption rumors posted on right wing websites.)

Seriously, if you want to post information about the lawsuits that have been dismissed without merit, post fact that is printed in a reputable source. State that Berg claims ____. Or Donofrio claims _____. But at least also try to be unbiased about your assessment and offer the opposing argument. Posting garbage like "His campaign released a certificate of live birth, which was subsequently proven to be a forgery" is just dishonest. Garbage that is passed around among the many right wing blogs is not fact and only serves the purpose of confusing the casual reader.

If it were fact, in the opinion of this writer and most people in this country, there would be cases in court by people who actually have standing and something to gain from this - the GOP, the DNC, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. It is also arguable that they would have brought this information up long before the election, and certainly before the Electoral College met today, Dec 15, 2008. --Wri1975 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was with you up until the last paragraph where you argue standing and the timing of these lawsuits. I believe this discussion has gotten out of hand over what should be a simple statement of facts. I feel the Obama section should exist only because McCain has a section questioning his birth status. There seems to be more of a fight here to keep Obama off the wiki page but not McCain's, and that gives an appearance of bias.

You state that only political party groups or the losing candidates have standing, but that is not clearly described under the law. You are correct, in my opinion and according to most court rulings, that ordinary citizens such as Berg and Donofrio, Wrotnowski, et al. do not have standing to challenge the constitutional requirements of a presidential candidate. But it is also unclear if a presidential candidate could. McCain and Clinton are lucky since they are U.S. Senators so they may have standing in that regard, but Alan Keyes has not held political office but was also a presidential candidate but I do not believe the courts would find he has standing either.

Whether or not this is fact or fiction, there is very little reason for anyone in Congress to bring a case. Clinton or the DNC would be committing political suicide, it is just nonsense to suggest anyone in the democratic party would risk their lives and future ambitions over this even if they knew 100% it was true. Everyone would be hurt and nobody would benefit in that hypothetical.

As to the timing of the lawsuits, in civil procedure there is something known as the ripeness doctrine of justiciability, which basically means a court cannot rule on a lawsuit if claim is not "ripe" for adjudication. A challenge to Obama or McCain's eligibility would not be ready until it is certain a person is to become President. The courts will not rule on something that "might" happen in the future because that would be speculating the law and the courts would be wasting time on an issue they may never occur. The challenges, if they were to ever occur, would need to be brought up now and only now. The timing of the lawsuits, while appearing to be vindictive and the result of right-wing propaganda (and they still may be just that) are actually legally proper.

One final comment about your comments, in the beginning you stated some of the points made were proven to be outright false, but you really don't say that when responding to each point. I see words like rumor and speculation, but nothing that clearly says this is outright false and here is the proof or evidence. Just pointing out that if you are going to make a bold claim to the reader, you should make sure your post follows that premise. Again, I'd like to state my only interest here is for a neutral POV article and I think the new section "Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned" is correcting that issue finally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Was protection appropriate?

On the disputed subject of how to treat the specific example of Obama's birth, the version now protected is the one I wrote. Nevertheless, I believe that the protection was ill-advised. There has been serious discussion on this page about the different alternatives. The edit warring hadn't become a major problem. I suggest that protection be lifted.

Given the raft of argument over on Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories, some kind of protection I would expect.Kevin (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the protection implies that the language I wrote is the wrong version, an aspersion I resent. :) JamesMLane t c 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your version explains the situation in good detail. Protection is fine for now. There's nothing new to add to the article, and this will become a moot issue once Obama's Presidency becomes reality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be moot. Some of the litigants and their supporters (on websites like Free Republic) have vowed to pursue the argument with regard to all of Obama's actions as President. In the normal course of events, there will be lawsuits or administrative proceedings involving regulations promulgated by Obama appointees in the agencies. There will be federal criminal trials presided over by Obama-appointed judges. Of the many people who'll be involved in such matters, a small percentage (notably those who have no other argument to make) will contend that Obama isn't really President.

More to the point, a reference to the issues raised concerning the various candidates and Presidents is helpful to the reader in illuminating the concept of "natural-born citizen". The disputes about the likes of Chester A. Arthur and Barry Goldwater are certainly moot, but those paragraphs should stay in. Therefore, we'll still have to worry about the Obama wording after January 20. JamesMLane t c 16:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Vice Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned

One of the problems facing the current lawsuits that seem to be trying to make natural-born citizen US+2 (born in the US of 2 US citizen parents), is the precedent of Chester Arthur whose father was British at the time of his birth.

People on both sides in the current lawsuits are looking into vice presidents and whether they are US+2. Charles Curtis comes to mind since his mother was probably not a US Citizen. And how about Spiro Agnew?Kevin (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: retitle the article or globalize it

I'm tempted to add a {{Globalize/U.S.}} tag to this article. Yes, I see the {{dablink}} note at the top of the article, but the topic isn't necessarily U.S.-specific. See, for example, Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Philippines. My suggestion: move this article to [[Natural-born citizen (U.S.)] and replace it with a new article which addresses the topic in a globalized manner and which links at the appropriate point to the U.S.-specific article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer the title "Natural-born citizen of the United States". That's similar to the language in the Constitution, and it doesn't require us to write a new globalized article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. The first time I saw this article, I was surprised the title was so 'bare'. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The move lost the hyphen; was that intentional? Also, check for double redirects, there's likely to be some. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)May

No hyphen in the actual Constitution. Already fixed a double-redirect. Will look for more.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm late to the conversation as the move has already been made, but I agree with Ferrylodge. I'm not sure if the phrase is even used outside of the United States, but we should indicate that this article only refers to it in the context of the U.S. Constitution. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase might not be used by other countries but the basis of that, using different wording as each language has their own (somtimes hard to translate wording) and we should just see it as such (translation into English). My point is, that I would prefer to go back to the original title and make the new one a sub that can stand on his own.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See also an old version of this article [1] and pay attention to the lead sentence.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of the article has always been U.S.-focused, the history should stay here. If someone wants to create a new article that deals with the term in other countries, they can, and copy the back-version Honduras material to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a point here since it might take some time till someone would create a global version (if at all). A suggestion: Leave the old title as a redirect and if a global article emerges go back and make it a sub as I pointed out above. Till then (and this might be forever) I'm fine with the way it is now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with The Magnificent Clean-keeper. The new title is better, and the old title should redirect here until and unless there is sufficient material for another article with global scope. Richwales (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the move and new title was badly thought out. This article is not about Natural born citizens of the United States, much less the Natural born citizen [sic] of the United States (like there's only one???), it is about the Natural born citizen clause in the United States Constitution. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 02:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice handle. :-) You're right that this article is primarily about a clause in the US Constitution. But not every such article needs to use the word "clause" in the title. For example, see Impeachment in the United States which is primarily about the impeachment clause of the Constitution. And, of course, we are entitled to have an article about the U.S. Congress without specifying in the article title that Congress is a creature of the Constitution. The main point, I think, is that the new title is an improvement over the old title.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment in the United States is a little vague as well, but a least it's grammatically correct. Impeachment is a legal process - we don't have to point this out. A natural-born citizen is a person, so we have to be clear what we're actually talking about US constitutional law and not just a group of people or a certain individual. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 03:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as grammar is concerned, there are lots of Wikipedia article titles that have the same style as this one. For example, see Mother.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it's singular, "Mother" is fine, but "Mother of the United States" would be a bit laughable. I'd prefer to revert to the old title but saving that I think I'll rename it to Natural born citizen clause in the United States Constitution. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would object to such a renaming. I think the current title (Natural born citizen of the United States) is fine. Richwales (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Richwales. The present title seems consistent with many other Wikipedia article titles, such as: Map of the United States, Honorary Citizen of the United States, Acting President of the United States, Declaration of war by the United States, and General of the Army (United States). I could give many other examples. I do not see why using the term "citizen" in the present article title would be better than using the term "citizen of the United States".Ferrylodge (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But the article isn't actually about what the title says its about, it just doesn't make sense. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> I wish we didn't have to get into a monumental battle about every little thing. The article is precisely about what it means to be a natural born citizen of the United States. What do you think it's about?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, if we agree to change "citizen of the United States" in the article title back to "citizen" then could we remove the tag? I'm not saying I endorse that, but is that your position? You said that you would "prefer to revert to the old title" and that would be accomplished by changing "citizen of the United States" to "citizen", right? Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since there's no response, and since there's apparently consensus for the current title, I'll remove the tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Elk v. Wilkins

Twice now, someone has deleted a proper citation to this case without bothering to justify the deletion on the discussion page. It seems to be a very relevant case for the issue presented by this article. What is the justification for trying to exclude it? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your summary of Elk v. Wilkins remains in this Wikipedia article. However, I removed the stuff about Vattel, since Vattel is already covered in the article (and merely citing Vattel does not establish that the Clause is based on his writings). Also removed the stuff you put in the Obama section. That section is long enough already. If you want to add more material like this, please go to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Wong Kim Ark seems much more pertinent to Obama than Elk v. Wilkins.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care if you want to keep the conspiracy stuff out, but I think there is POV pushing by burying Vattel. "The Law of Nations" was cited by Scalia in Heller as a treatise relied upon by the drafters, and it specifically defines what a natural born citizen is. It should be in the discussion of the Constitutional provisions, as it gives insight into what the drafters were most likely thinking. It should not be buried in the discussion of Wong. Tommylotto (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If this were an article on the Second Amendment, then we could say that Scalia has cited Vattel as authority for the meaning of the constitutional provision, but we could not simply say that Vattel is authority for the meaning of the constitutional provision without citing anyone. We would have to cite Scalia, and say in the text that Scalia has relied on Vattel. See what I'm saying? We cannot do WP:Synthesis which is a type of WP:Original research.

A Wikipedia article on the Second Amendment would have to cite some authority (such as Scalia) for using Vattel as a source for the meaning of the constitutional provision. Likewise, we use Wong Kim Ark as such an authority here in this article. We cannot go making assertions without authority.

As for your assertion that Vattel is "buried" in our discussion of Wong Kim Ark, that's obviously not true. This is a short article, so nothing is buried. And even if it were a lengthy article, please note that we have wikilinked Vattel so that he really stands out and will be noticed. In any case, there is absolutely no reason to redundantly cite Vattel in this article, just for emphasis.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are disputing. Are you disputing that Vattel's Law of Nations was an influential treatise to the original drafters? Scalia has cited in connection with the second amendment, and Harlan has cited it specifically in this context on citizenship in Wong. I do not think it is controversial to say that it was influential on the original drafters -- there are at least two Supreme Court Justices that have cited it and one directly on point. So, if you are disputing the work's influence, you are simply wrong. If you dispute where it should be properly discussed, that is a legitimate dispute, however, I still have to disagree. The section on the applicable constitutional provisions is the logical place to discuss original intent, not buried in the section on case law. Furthermore, I think the section on Wong is poorly written and difficult to follow, particularly the reference to Vattel. Frankly, I think that section too is in need of revision. Vattel was not cited or address by the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Vattel is cited in Wong in the dissenting opinion. It deserves to be buried.Kevin (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The main dispute here is about where Vattel should be mentioned in this article. No framer is known to have specifically cited Vattel in connection with this clause. In contrast, Justice Harlan specifically cited Vattel in connection with this clause. So it makes more sense to mention Vattel when discussing Harlan's dissent in Wong Kim Ark. Certainly Vattel should not be mentioned redundantly in this article in both places.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New reference sites

A super web site has been set up by an attorney with case law, AG opinions and more at The "Natural Born Citizenship" Clause (Updated). I commend it to anyone wanting to find material to extend or improve this article. Also new is The Great Mother of All Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages. A. P. Hinman's smear book on Chester A. Arthur, How a British Subject Became President of the United States is now available for the first time on the Internet through a link at obamaconspiracy.org.Kevin (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

None of those sites can be considered reliable sources. Are you actually proposing that we cite some kooky blog called "obamaconspiracy"? --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of those sites provide links to the original law/published law review articles, etc., which are, indeed reliable sources. Kevin did not propose cite either resource but, rather, to sue them as a resource to "find material to extend or improve this article." Tesibria (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, you should actually read through these blogs, and not reject them from the gut. This website e.g. has some unique information, which is not in this WP-article, namely Lynch v. Clarke (1844), a case where it is explicitly stated in the proceedings that a "native born citizen", even if he has alien parents, is eligible for Presidency, because the only law defining "natural born citizen" at the time of the adoption of the constitution, was the common law (therein called "natural born subject"). This is of course just a legal opinion, but it's nevertheless valuable information for this article. There are other opinions of course, e.g. that not the British Common Law has to be seen as the origin of the term, but the Law of Nations. —85.179.129.222 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey's vandalism

Loonymonkey reverted relevant information and wrote that on Obama's website there "is nothing of the sort", referring to Obama's dual citizenship and native born citizen status. As a matter of fact it is clearly stated on fightthesmears.com right at the beginning of that webpage. It says there: "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America." This statement means that Barack Obama is (on this website) termed a "native born citizen" of the US, in other words: born in the US as a native. That's what it says. There can be no second opinion about this. The other information that Loonymonkey willfully (and with bias?) deleted, was that this webpage also refers to the dual jurisdiction that Obama was under at the time of his birth. It says: "As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." (Originally from the Annenberg Foundation: FactCheck.org.) This statement means that Obama was governed not only by the US but also by the United Kingdom, in other words: under dual jurisdiction. That's what it says. There can be no second opinion about this, especially considering the fact that the British Nationality Act is also mentioned in the main text of the article, however in a different context (lawsuit), but to avoid bloating the main text this further info was moved to a footnote. Since this is all based on factual information from the Obama campaign website, I have re-inserted the complete footnote and ask Loonymonkey to refrain from vandalizing this article. Thank you. —85.179.129.222 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, after 10 second review and not taking sides(of course), this sounds like a content dispute which is very different from vandalism. Please do not accuse editors of vandalism when its more of a difference of opinion on how the article should be crafted, this is not good faith. Getting other eyes involved always seems to help. Good luck, --Tom 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? You really should read up on what WP:VANDALISM actually is rather than throwing the accusation around every time you disagree with an edit. (Actually, you should probably read WP:AGF and WP:NPA while you're at it).

Back to the subject at hand, the sentence you're attempting to add is quite different from what is written above from the ref. You claimed that "Obama declared his citizenship status at birth as "native citizen" under dual jurisdiction" (note the link to Multiple citizenship on the words "dual jurisdiction.") Obama has never made any such declaration and the claim that he had dual citizenship, a fringe theory bandied about by certain blogs and the basis of a couple of failed lawsuits, is not supported by any reliable source. Making such a statement (even in a hidden comment visible only to editors) would be a violation of WP:BLP. Why don't you let a few other editors weigh in before edit-warring and attempting to add this again, okay? --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Only three reasons . . .

i hate the ignorance of people writing stuff on wikipedia and calling themselves "americans" when they don't know shit about anything. A natural born US citizen can be of only three reason:

born in the US.

born outside the US to two US citizens, one must have resided in the US for at least for 10 years.

born outside the US after November 13th 1986 to one US citizen lving in the US for at least 10 years, 5 after the age of 16 and one during their 14th birthday.

there you have it. Don't DARE to edit again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinanwolfgazo (talk • contribs)

I moved the above comment down to the end of the talk page, into a new section. In general, if you have a new comment, it's better to put it at the end of the talk page, rather than embed it deeply into the midst of other material, where your new comment is very likely to be overlooked by others.

As for your claim that people are being ignorant here: Sorry, but it's not that simple. You've summarized the current law under which people born outside the US are "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth", but there are still some problems.

First, if the above material is to be put in the article, the source (Immigration and Nationality Act, section 301; 8 USC 1401) needs to be cited.

Second, there are other relevant situations — such as someone born out of wedlock to an American mother who had previously spent at least one continuous full year in the US [INA 309(c), 8 USC 1409(c)] — or people born under the provisions of older laws — so the above summarization should not be presented as if it were complete.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, not everyone agrees that having US citizenship at birth is the same as being a "natural born" US citizen. Although some people (you evidently among them) do believe these two concepts are obviously equivalent, some (not obviously crackpot) arguments have been presented over the years to the effect that a "natural born citizen" must have been born in the US.

So it's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to believe it is.

And FWIW, I personally do happen to believe that "natural born" and "citizen at birth" are the same thing, and that the expression does include people born outside the US but with citizenship conferred upon them from birth under US law as it was in effect at the time of their birth — but I also recognize that it's an open question with legitimate alternative viewpoints that need to be treated neutrally and even-handedly in this article. Richwales (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed under "Legislation and executive branch policy"

" In addition, George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law, yet it was not vetoed.

In 1795, the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790, to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."[5] George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change, and yet did not veto it."

There are two references to these acts not being vetoed by President Washington. It is entirely unclear why not vetoing these acts is relevant. It appears that the intent is a suggestion that the two acts are inconsistent and that not vetoing them is an act of inconsistency on Washington's part, but then Congress itself was already inconsistent in passing them.

If I am missing the significance, then perhaps can it be rephrased in a way that is more clear?

Suggestion: Whoever added the statement regarding Washington's decision not to veto these acts explain the relevance of Washington's decision, or delete these clauses.

Koyar (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)koyar

I am not the person who added the statements in question, but I believe the intent was that since George Washington was one of the original framers of the Constitution (including its "natural born citizen" provision), he must (presumably) have seen no problem either with saying that foreign-born children of Americans were "natural born", or that they were not — for if he had felt strongly enough about the issue, one way or the other, he would (presumably) have vetoed one bill or the other over this point alone.

This, in turn, would be an argument supporting those who do not believe that "natural born citizen" means precisely the same as "citizen at birth". And it might possibly be an argument supporting those who believe Congress has no authority to define or alter what "natural born citizen" means — since, in their view, the 1790 law's attempt to say that foreign-born children of Americans were "natural born" would have been an overstepping on Congress's authority, which went unnoticed in 1790, but which was corrected by deleting the term from the 1795 statute — a corrective action which Washington must (presumably) have approved of because he signed the 1795 bill.

I, personally, am not persuaded by this reasoning — and even if I were, it's clearly a major chunk of synthesis or original research that does not belong in Wikipedia, unless a reliable source can be found to support it. Even in that case, the text of the article would need to be reworded to say something like "So-and-So has argued that President George Washington's failure to veto either the 1790 or the 1795 naturalization law implies that Washington and other original framers of the Constitution held such-and-so view regarding the significance of the 'natural born citizen' clause." Without any citable source of this sort, I would definitely recommend removing any mention of Washington's signing (or failing to veto) these bills. Richwales (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got it right. It's likely a wikipedia editor drawing conclusions by inference. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I edited this section to remove the unwarranted speculation. I also rearranged and reworded some other parts of the section to make it a bit easier to read and to remove some of the nit-picky clutter. In this sort of summary/overview of a complex topic, we can't possibly include every tiny detail, and (IMHO) we really shouldn't try to do so, because the more we load up the text with precise dates and specific statutory cites, the more likely it is that other editors will feel compelled to add even more, until the end result reads more like a legal brief than an encyclopedia article. Richwales (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't author the passages, but before jumping to the conclusion that this is WP:Synth, I would suggest checking the Annals of Congress. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is any discussion, in the legislative history of either bill, of the "natural born citizen" phrase, then I agree it could be appropriate to comment that so-and-so said such-and-such about the topic (with appropriate cites to specific pages of the Annals of Congress). But I still disagree with the original text, which (I believe) implied an unsubstantiated "silence is assent" conclusion based on the lack of presidential vetoes. Richwales (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Key distinction" and "to parents who are U.S. citizens"

User "Fodderoni" made several edits this afternoon which I feel are inappropriate and am going to revert. My reasons are too long to fit in an edit summary, so I'm putting them here.

In the section "Constitutional provisions", the original text read: It is thought by some that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil is a "natural born citizen" eligible to someday become president or vice-president . . . . The other editor added to parents who are U.S. citizens and the ungrammatical Latin ("jus soli jus sanguine"). Since this paragraph is laying out two extremes (birth in the U.S. vs. later naturalization), it is IMHO not proper to narrow the meaning further by making these additions. (And, BTW, the correct Latin phrase for citizenship by descent is jus sanguinis, but it still doesn't belong here.)

In the section "Legislation and executive branch policy", the editor added a paragraph reading: The U.S. Constitution makes the key distinction (using the term "or") between the terms "Natural Born U.S. Citizen" (or) "U.S. Citizen" ("...'natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States..."). All Natural Born U.S. Citizens are U.S. Citizens, but not all U.S. Citizens are Natural Born U.S. Citizens (jus soli jus sanguinus). All persons born in the United States to parents who are U.S. Citizens are "Natural Born Citizens". There is, as far as I can tell, no justification for concluding that this is a "key distinction" (unless a reliable source can be cited in support of this). The added material contrasts "natural born Citizen" with "Citizen of the United States" without noting the words following "Citizen of the United States" (namely, a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) — material which (I would say) deflates the claim that this constitutes a "key distinction" between natural born citizens and other types of citizen. The claim that all persons born in the US "to parents who are U.S. Citizens" is POV here, since (as explained elsewhere in the article) one part of the dispute over the meaning of "natural born citizen" is whether or not the phrase includes US-born children of alien parents. And the rampant capitalization in this added material is noot appropriate in modern usage.

The reference to Senate Resolution 511 of the 110th Congress (the resolution wherein the Senate unanimously affirmed John McCain's status as a natural born citizen) is out of place here, because it really has nothing to do with the claim of a "key distinction" between "citizen" and "natural born citizen", and it certainly has nothing to do with the status of someone born in the US to American parents. I hesitate on principle to remove a reference to a source, but it simply isn't relevant here (though it may very possibly be relevant somewhere else in the article).

This is my second major reversion in this article today, so I'm going to take a break after this, lest anyone accuse me of trying to claim ownership of the article or engage in an edit war. If others agree (or disagree) with what I did or my reasons for doing it, by all means go ahead and express your viewpoints. Richwales (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The current text and edits on this "Natural Born Citizen" page have focused on emphasizing the definition of "U.S. Citizen" and not the distinct definition of "Natural Born Citizen", which after all is supposed to be the purpose of this Wikipedia page. The former broad category of US Citizen is inclusive of the latter of Natural Born US Citizen but they are distinct and this distinction is referred to in the US Constitution by using "OR" between the two definitions in the requirements for POTUS. This page's attempted obfuscation to blur the definitions of the types of citizenships is obviously a biased effort by an obviously biased set of editors for obvious reasons. Nowhere on this page is the distinction drawn between "natural born" versus "native born" versus "naturalized" versus "by statute" or even plural citizenships and edits actively discourage the proper definitions. The definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is so obvious that even Barack Hussein Obama, Senator Leahy, Secretary Chertoff, Nancy Pelosi, and others as recently as last Spring emphasized in various public documents that a natural born citizen is born of parentS who are "US CitizenS" (plural) and on US soil. Of course there are many other clear historical references from John Bingham, Wong Kim Ark, and Perkins v. Elg. All of the rejoinders pertaining to US Citizenship are utterly irrelevant to the purpose of this page, and have no rightful place upon this page because as the Constitution so clearly delineates, a US Citizen who is not a Natural Born Citizen must have been alive at the time of the ratification to be eligible for the office of POTUS. The intellectual content of this page is disturbingly political and non-factual. It needs to be gutted and written in an honest fashion, not one meant to mislead the casual reader.

Look at the first element to this page which is chock full of horrible inaccuracies:

The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States. The meaning of the term "natural born citizens of the United States" can defined in categories[1]:

   * Anyone born inside the United States

(UNTRUE: A person born of foreign national(s) inside the United States will have plural citizenships and is therefore not a "natural born citizen"--they ARE a "Native Born" US Citizen, however.)

   * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

(TRUE: Native Americans born in the U.S. are always genuine "Natural Born Citizens".)

   * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

(UNTRUE: The baby born of at least one US Citizen parent outside of US soil is not a "Natural Born Citizen"; they are however a U.S. Citizen who may naturalize.)

   * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

(UNTRUE: The baby born outside of US soil to at least one US Citizen parent is not a "Natural Born Citizen"; they are however a U.S. Citizen and may naturalize as such.)

   * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

(UNTRUE: The baby born on U.S. soil is a Native-Born U.S. Citizen but unless both parents are U.S. Citizens the baby is not a "Natural Born Citizen".)

   * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

(UNTRUE: A child of unknown parentage who shows up in the U.S. is not proven to be a "Natural Born Citizen".)

   * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

(UNTRUE: A child born to an alien and a US Citizen born outside of the U.S. may be a Dual Citizen and a Naturalized U.S. Citizen but not a "Natural Born Citizen")

   * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S."

(UNTRUE: A child born a Dual Citizen is not a "Natural Born Citizen" but is a Native Born US Citizen.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fodderoni (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You make an interesting point about the "or" as used between "natural born citizen" and "citizen". I always assumed that there were two classes of qualified persons: 1) a natural born Citizen, or 2) a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. However, I note in the official text that there is a comma between "a Citizen of the United States" and "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" The comma might complicate interpretation. However, do you have any reliable verifiable authorities for this interpretation. We cannot have any original research on WP.Tommylotto (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire first section sets a false premise for the Natural Born Citizen Wikipedia page. The reference (#1) states: "Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth", or in other words natural-born U.S. Citizens". FALSE. Title 8 and Section 1401 NEVER state "in other words natural-born U.S. Citizens". In fact they simply state what they do define, which is the broad category of "U.S. Citizens". "Natural Born Citizens" fall under this category as do "Naturalized", "By Statute", "Native-Born" and "Plural" Citizenships, but a "Natural Born Citizen" (jus sanguine jus soli--by the way "jus sanguine" IS a correct way of stating "law of blood") is a distinct and differentiated subcategory. OTHERWISE the Constitution would not have specifically differentiated by virtue of the word "OR" the term "Natural Born Citizen" versus "U.S. Citizen".

This first section defines merely U.S. Citizenship, a direction which is only a "red herring", and sets the stage to muddle the entire definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Nowhere in the cited reference does it state there is an assumption that any U.S. Citizen is a Natural Born Citizen. That is preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.32.250 (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole reason why this article exists in the first place is that there have been ongoing controversies over the precise definition of the phrase "natural born citizen". Among the points that are not universally agreed upon (even if you consider only "mainstream" opinions) are the following:

whether "natural born citizen" is, or is not, precisely the same (by definition) as "citizen at birth" — many people do admittedly consider this to be an obvious no-brainer, but some do not.

whether any statutory definition of citizenship can possibly be relevant to what "natural born citizen" means — or whether this phrase (being in the Constitution) can only be defined by the Constitution itself (via strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and Congress's power to create a uniform rule of naturalization).

whether some people born outside the US to an American parent or parents are "natural born citizens" because Congress says certain such people are citizens at/from birth — or whether such people can only be considered as having been "naturalized at birth" (or something similar) because the Constitution talks about citizenship at birth only in the 14th Amendment (which only deals with people born in the US).

whether a person born in the US, to an alien parent or parents, might not be a "natural born citizen", even though acts of Congress (and presumably also the 14th Amendment, though some do disagree on this) say that such a person is a citizen at birth.

whether a person born in the US is a "natural born citizen" even if he/she has "dual" citizenship — which could easily happen because an ancestral country may happen to consider that person to also be one of its citizens via descent (according to its own laws, and without regard for US law).

This is why there have, over the years, been questions or challenges raised over the eligibility of candidates such as Chester Arthur, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, John McCain, and Barack Obama. None of these challenges has ever been upheld, of course, and some may have been little more than fringe crackpot delusions, but the question has come up and has been seriously discussed by knowledgeable people because the issue is not considered definitively settled.

Since there is a divergence of mainstream opinion on this topic, WP:NPOV requires us to recognize the various positions and report on the controversy in an even-handed fashion. We can not simply embrace one set of positions — such as that "natural born citizens" comprise all persons designated "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" under current statute law (the Immigration and Nationality Act, or its restatement in 8 USC) — or that "natural born citizens" means all (and only) those born in the US to two American parents — and put forth this one view as the obviously correct definition of the phrase, and give short shrift to opposing arguments. We don't need to automatically give equal weight to crackpot fringe theories, but we do need to acknowledge that this is a controversial subject and give the reader a balanced and fair understanding of the various arguments and the reasoning behind them.

This is why I have been objecting to the recent edits, which, in my view, give grossly undue prominence to one point of view to the minimizing / exclusion of others. The fact that I, personally, happen to believe that "natural born citizen" does mean exactly the same thing as "citizen at birth" (as determined by the statutes in effect at the time of a person's birth) does not lessen my commitment to help make this article reflect a neutral viewpoint. Richwales (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To Richwales: I agree and you are right on point on the need for the article to be neutral. I have edited the article to put the USC Title 8 Section 1401 to an appropriate place in this article, Legislation regarding citizenship. Putting a definition of types of statutory "nationals and citizens at birth" at the very top of this article and saying it defines categories of "natural born citizenship" is totally false, misleading, and an obfuscation of the facts. The term "natural born citizen" is not defined in any statute in U.S. Code. Implying it is, is very deceptive and is not appropriate for this article. Mtngoat63 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I reworked the "Legislation and executive branch policy" section to summarize the basic concepts of 8 USC 1401ff., but without the verbatim quote of the entire section (which seemed to me to be out of character with the rest of the section). Please note that a full treatment of "citizenship at birth" under current statutes would need to include not just section 1401, but also the following sections through section 1409. Additionally, since Title 8 of the United States Code has not been enacted as positive law, a proper cite of this material really needs to refer to it as "sections 301-309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act". Richwales (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional provisions

I'm uneasy with the paragraph beginning with "It is thought by some" — this seems to be promoting one particular view of natural-born citizenship (and probably not the majority view) ahead of other views. Maybe this paragraph (or some variation thereon) might make more sense in the later "Various other opinions" section?

Also, I'm not comfortable with the summary of the 14th Amendment's "citizenship clause". The amendment does not use the phrase "citizenship by law"; and, from what I've read, this particular phrase seems to be promoted most often by people who argue that anyone born outside the US — even those designated as being "citizens at birth" under current statutes — can (constitutionally) only be some sort of naturalized citizen (and thus not natural born). I would prefer to see this paragraph reworded so as not to use the phrase "citizenship by law" — and also so it doesn't sound like we're saying the 14th Amendment envisions only these two possible ways of being a US citizen (something it doesn't say, or at least is not held by any sort of broad consensus to say). Richwales (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Irrevocability of Natural Citizenship" ??

Themoodyblue and I have a disagreement over whether this material belongs in this article or not. To me, it seems like a synthesis of original research — in no small part because it currently cites no sources. Also, I think it's off topic: something like this (if suitably sourced and made more NPOV) might be OK in the article on United States nationality law, but not here. The only real link I can see between this material and the rest of the "natural born citizen" article would be a possible tie-in to the claim made by some that Obama had lost his US citizenship as a child while in Indonesia with his stepfather — but since that claim was never adjudicated, I really don't think we can get away with just flatly declaring it to be in error (either in this article, or in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Rather than make this dispute into more of an edit war than it's already becoming, I (and hopefully also Themoodyblue) would welcome comments from others on this. Richwales (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the material is correct vis a vis citizenship, but should be supported by proper authorities. However, I think it is pure speculation that this rule of law concerning citizenship would apply to natural born citizenship. Since the distinction between the two concepts is the reason this page exists, such an assertion (that the principle applies to natural born citizenship as well as citizenship) must be supported by reliable third party sources -- and even if it can be supported, unless it is a federal appellate court decision in a presidential qualification challenge, the assertion should not be considered conclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrevocability of natural citizenship

Natural United States citizenship cannot be revoked for any reason, except through voluntary, uncoerced, freely given self-renunciation by the individual citizen through their own choice and decision. The government has no power to revoke natural citizenship, even for treason or other high crimes. Naturalized citizens, conversely, do not have this same absolute protection. This absolute protection of natural citizenship is based on the idea that natural citizenship is a fundamental right, while in many ways the law views naturalized citizenship as a privilege that must be earned to gain the right. Natural citizenship is based in the ancient Latin concepts of both jus soli - the more commonly understood concept of being born on United States soil to gain citizenship - and jus sanguinis, the concept of of being born to parents who are United States citizens ("jus sanguinis" literally translates as "right of blood") whether born on United States soil or elsewhere. Both create an individual to natural citizenship. The individual must also be under the jurisdiction of the United States and one of the several States or Commonwealths of the United States, US Territories, Federal Districts, Embassies, Consulates or Missions, US Military Bases or Facilities, or any other place where the United States government holds exclusive, or primary concurrent, jurisdiction. }}

This is not cite-supported. Sources which appear to refute parts of this include the following three pieces of advice from the U.S. Department of State, which make no exception for "Natural United States citizens":

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It might additionally be noted that the current statute dealing with loss of US citizenship — INA 349(a), 8 United States Code 1481(a) — explicitly applies both to citizenship "whether by birth or naturalization". Also, the landmark Supreme Court case which declared the retention of US citizenship to be a constitutionally protected right — Afroyim v. Rusk — involved a naturalized US citizen. In any event, even if the paragraph in question were to be cleaned up and properly sourced, my opinion remains that this material doesn't belong in this article, since the primary focus of this article is on the concept of "natural born" citizenship as a requirement for the Presidency. Richwales (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Material removed from article

This edit removed the following snippet from the end of the Various other opinions section.

In Marbury vs Madison, Chief Justice Marshall stated:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

Therefore the term "natural born citizen" must have some effect other than the effect of the term "citizen" as found in the 14th Ammendment.

with an edit summary saying, rv; see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; this comment could be OK if a reliable secondary source is found which discusses Marshall's comment and tries to apply it to the issue at hand.

Googling around, I see an article titled SCOTUS Has No Original Jurisdiction To Issue A Writ of Quo Warranto re Obama; Legal presumption in favor of natural born citizen clause and effect on http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a website operated by Leo Donofrio. Donofrio is a former lawyer, and was the plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells. The washingtonpost.com article Supreme Court Declines to Hear Obama Nationality Case has some info about that case and about Donofrio.

WP:RS says that self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I'm located on a small island in the Philippines and it's not easy for me to check for info on Donofrio's established expertise or on his publication history, but I thought I would mention this here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Consular reports of birth abroad ..."

I moved the following here from the end of the Legislation and executive branch policy section:

Consular reports of birth abroad state that citizenship is granted by law, 22 USC 2705. This is true even when one parent is not a citizen. Also, the language on the report states that the child "acquired United States citizenship at birth." The report merely recognizes the citizenship that inheres in the child of a citizen at the moment of birth. It is reasonable to assume that anyone who automatically becomes a citizen at birth would be a "natural born citizen." Such a person is not a "foreigner," but has a direct link to the United States through the American citizen parent, especially so if that parent is a natural born citizen.

The initial sentence or two probably are statement of fact, but supporting sources should be cited. The remainder seems to be presenting an argument (see WP:SOAP). Such an argument does not belong in Wikipedia unless it is reported as the position of a notable outside party, supported by citations of reliable secondary sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical References

For the classic and historic definition of “natural born citizen”, I will cite three sources of the many possible. But first I will provide the real definition of “natural born citizen”

A natural born citizen is a person born on United States soil or territory to parents both of whom are at the time of that birth, themselves citizens of the United States.

For the sources of this information please read the following :

Source One : Emmerich de Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” 1758

That Vattel’s book “Laws of Nations” was in the hands and minds of those who wrote the Constitution was attested to by none other than Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Charles W.F. Dumas dated Dec. 9, 1775 in which Franklin wrote :

'“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...”'

For verification of the substantial use of Vattel by the writers of the Declaration of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence please refer to the following websites :

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm

And now to Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” . In Chapter 19 (XIX) Section 212 Mr. Vattel stated the following :

“ The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens “

And later in that same section these words :

“ I say that in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen, for if he is born of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth and not his country. “

Please keep these words in mind when you read Source Three hereafter.

Source Two : Senator John A. Bingham

Senator John A. Bingham was the principle author of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution (also known as the Citizens Rights Amendment).

Senator Bingham said while speaking about the rights of citizens in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 6, 1866 the following :

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Pleases note the words “ … of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, is in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. “

For reference to this statement please refer to the following website :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham

Source Three : The United States Constitution

Article 2 Section 1, paragraph 5 of the Constitution states the following specific qualifications for President of the United States :

“ 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; 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. “

Please note the words “ natural born citizen” .

Please note that elsewhere in the Constitution, the qualifications for Senator and Representative provide that they be only a “citizen” of the United States.

Whereas, the more stringent “ natural born citizen” was placed upon those seeking to be President.

It was duly reported that during the drafting of the Constitution, the original clause for qualification of President required only “citizen” of the United States. But, serious discussion of this matter ensued and it was finally agreed upon, and recorded that “citizen” was redacted and that the new words “natural born citizen” were inserted.

The writer’s of the Constitution at the time were “citizens” but were NOT themselves “natural born citizens” being born on the land of this nation when it was the Brittish colonies, or born to parents who were not citizens of the United States at the time of their birth. So they also wrote the exception clause :

“ … or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

…specifically to allow men like themselves to seek and hold the office of President, but to order ever after their generation passed away, that only “natural born citizens” and not just “citizens” would hold the office of President of the United States.

George Washington was born in Virginia to parents both born in Virginia (at the time a Brittish colony). James Madison, the 3rd President was also born in Virginia to parents who were also born in Virginia. Since Virginia just became American soil.... why did these men consider themselves only citizens... and not "natural born citizens" ? That is if place of birth mattered. Could it be the allegiance of their parents to Brittian ?

No these men were thinking about their own progeny. Those who thereafter would be born on U.S. soil to parents BOTH of whom were citizens.

Thus from the Constitution itself, you can see that it is possible to be a “citizen” of the United States but not a “natural born citizen” of the United States and therefore not be eligible to run for the office of President.

Under the 14th Amendment and many references cited in discussion articles above, birth on U.S. soil to parents (one or both) that are not citizens of the United States granst one "citizenship" but never "natural born citizenship".

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment begins :

" 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."

Therefore one can readily see from the 14th Amendment that citizenship is granted by birth or naturalization. That this is ONLY citizenship and not the more stringent natural born citizenship is evident.

As others have said, birth on foreign soil to parents who are citizens, grants the child "citizenship" but never "natural born citizenship".

Natural born citizenship is a tripod requirement like a three legged stool Leg one = born on U.S. soil, Leg two = father is a citizen Leg three = mother is also a citizen.

Failure of any one leg of the tripod.... causes the argument to fail, and therefore the failure to confer "natural born" citizenship.

Conclusion

It becomes apparent from the historical documents thus cited, and the political situation of the founders of our Constitution, that they intended that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would a President of the United states be beholden to any foreign soverignty either through birth or through either parent.

Therefore a person born in the United States of a parent or parents who are not U.S. citizens at the time of birth..... should not be a "natural born citizen".

Wordwaryor (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this material. If any of it is to be included in the article, it may (in my opinion) be used only to show that some people have argued for this view. This material must NOT be used in such a way as to say, "This is the true definition of 'natural born citizen', as proven by the following statements." If you do not understand why someone might take such a stance, please re-read WP:PSTS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Richwales (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html is not a reliable source. First, it is a one person website. Second, the introduction on the home page starts, "While preparing a presentation on the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton for chapter meetings of the LaRouche movement, I realized how badly Americans have been misled on their own nation's history." I suggest sticking with uninterpreted quotations for Vattel, or using the views of recognized historians. Will Beback talk 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Verification needed

The statement I tagged FV claims a minority view. The cited reference does not (currently) support the claim that the statement made is a minority view. Further, the referenced source seems to contradict the statement made. From the cited source: "A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States."

While I believe that the idea that a naturalized citizen could be considered a "natural born citizen" as mentioned in the Constitution is wrong and would certainly represent a minority view, I do not have any sources to provide to back that up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Wilson (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merger proposal was not merged. Jafeluv (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The overlap between this article and Birthright citizenship in the United States of America is immense. The fact that there are interesting Constitutional issues attached to the specific phrasing does not, in my opinion, require a separate article. Keeping the facts and citations accurate in both requires double work (and twice the amount of discussion) that consolidating the two would entail.Roregan (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I would not support merging the two articles. They involve different clauses in the Constitution, and those clauses were put into the Constitution a century apart. The Natural Born Citizen Clause is in Article II of the original Constitution, and the Citizenship Clause is in the Fourteenth Amendment. They are undoubtedly related, but they also have very different aims, different implications, and different histories.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - For the same reasons Ferrylodge put forth. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - The issues relating to these two articles are, for the most part, very different. If a merger is needed, I would propose merging both of these articles into the United States citizenship article. Richwales (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - As stated above the specific issues relating to this subject are very different and this separate article on natural born citizen is needed as the clause is unique in our Constitution and should be retained as a separate and unique article and not merged into any other general article. Mtngoat63 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Same reasons. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with the above. Plus, Natural Born Citizen is only used in the Constitution as a qualification for President or Vice President. The 14th Amendment only mentions "citizen" and does not use the term "natural born citizen." Thus, "natural born citizen" does not necessarily mean the same thing as citizen at birth. "Natural born citizen" could be a legal term of art that means something other than just citizen at time of birth. The citizenship cases when using the term "natural born citizen" are being sloppy with terminology or are providing obiter dicta. Only a presidential qualification challenge case could provide precedent on the meaning of the term. Tommylotto (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with all of the above. There is a profound difference between natural and naturalized citizenship, as the article clearly states. I support leaving them unmerged and separate. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - There is a big difference between natural and naturalized. Do not merge these articles. T3chl0v3r (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quote from Emmerich de Vattel is misleading.

The way Emmerich de Vattel is quoted here is a clear example of novel synthesis and soapboxing.

"Les Naturels, ou Indigènes, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens."

The translation quoted here is from 1883. Surely, looking at the timeline of this debate, that version was not written "in tempore non suspecto". And no, it does not help that this gets quoted in a dissent part, because the exact phrasing here "cited the preeminent treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations” which was known to have influenced the drafters of the original constitution".

1) Cited. If they indeed quoted the text as mentioned here, they did not cite Vattel's work, they used a translation, a non-neutral one. We are getting very close to a hoax here, people. "Referred to" would have been better.

2) Preeminent = "greatest in importance or degree or significance or achievement". Sorry, POV and peacock language.

3) was known to? Are we sure? Some may say that the use of the past tense implies that it was merely the dissent saying that, but of course they are saying that, since they are using it. Basically, if you have a good source for that "known to", you will find that it does not refer specifically to this part of the constitution, and so you must ensure that if you are using it, you are not implying that Vattel indeed specifically influenced this particular passage in the US constitution (the impression the passage as written now is trying to create)

The two translations which existed at the time of the writing of the US constitution said: "The natives, or indigenes, are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens." In other words, even if we believe that de Vattel influenced the drafters of the constitution, he could not possible have influenced this part of it, since "Les Naturels, ou Indigènes, ..." was not known to the drafters as "natural born citizens".

Note that later in the paragraph, de Vattel refers to fathers - making it clear that this French sentence is in a "universal plural". De Vattel never considered the citizen status of the mother - "Je dis que pour être d'un pays, il fait être né d'un pére Citoyen" in opposition to "car si vous êtes né d'un Etranger" (=and not "d'une etrangère").

Note that Canadian nationality laws distinguish between

- "citoyens de naissance" meaning both a) all those born in Canada (with the usual exception of children of foreign embassy personnel) and b) those born abroad with at least one Canadian citizen parent who is not an adoptive parent

- "citoyens naturalisés".

Obviously "citoyens de naissance" is equivalent to "natural born citizens". Compare these two Canadian government websites:

[English version]

[French version]

How can you get from "Naturels" or "Indigènes" - a term which suggests Native Americans and does not even use the word "citoyen(s)" to "Natural born citizen"? This is now novel synthesis on my part, but it seems obvious that that translation is based on the US constitution. So, this is not Vattel influencing the US constitution, it is actually the other way around: the US constitution influencing the translation of Vattel.

So how to restore accountability and non-POV? "Preeminent" must go, of course. The phrase quoted form Vattel should be his exact words in French , and both translations, the one available to the drafters of the constitution and the one available to the makers of the dissent motion one century later should be quoted between brackets, with their respective dates. Anything else is purely misleading.

We also need to use the original French title of Vattel's book and not, or not only, the shortened English translation which is used by birfers to make the work seem more googly-important than it really is, because "Law of Nations" is simply the English translation of the continental European legal term "Völkerrecht", ius gentium, droit des gens.

Sources: [Vattel hoax exposed], [Various translations]

If, as I hope not, Vattel eventually gets more attention here (because birfers continue pushing Obama conspiracy theories) then Canadian nationality terminology will need to be mentioned. And the fact that Vattel never thought that BOTH parents had to be citizens should also be included. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How pathetic. "Les Naturels" = "the naturals". French = global diplomatic language. Period. Natural citizens = citizens born natural/natural born. In any case, you should read the proceedings: They used the term "native" as well, for them meaning the same as "natural". So yeah, please wind it back to the French original… do whatever you like… it doesn't change the fact that "naturales" means "naturals". (And by the way: Vattel is not part of a conspiracy theory. Those dimwits asking for the birth certificate are conspiracy theorists. Vattel is not part of the BC BS. It's "only" part of a valid legal question: Can a person subject to UK jurisdiction at birth be a "natural" US citizen? 85.178.118.61 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree that Native, as it's translated in the Original English and American Translations, is the same as Natural-Born. My question to you is why the founding fathers, who were all lawyers and very familiar with English Common Law, would abandon the fact that English Common Law, which everybody would be already familiar with, already defined Natural-Born, and take their definition from a translation that didn't even have the words "Natural-Born" in it? The De Vattel people are just as much of conspiracy theorists as others. Furthermore, to believe that this is a valid legal question that hasn't already been decided with Chester A. Arthur, you also must believe that the Entire U.S. Nation was duped into believing that Chester A. Arthur was a Natural-Born Citizen, when it was known by at least some people that his father was not a U.S. Citizen when Chester A. Arthur was born. It at best is an extreme minority view, that has already been rejected over 100 years ago by the precedent of Chester A. Arthur. Just as citizens who were born in a U.S. Territory which later became a state is decided by the precedent of Charles Curtis, and citizens who were born in the District of Columbia was decided by the precedent of Al Gore. Dunstvangeet (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed broken links under "Sources:" above. I've also edited the text in the article to insert a missing comma which is present in the quoted-from source (your requote above from the article probably ought to be similarly edited, but I have not done that). Also, re your point that the quoted translation is from 1883, I see that this source (cited in the article, but not on this point) quotes the preface to the 1852 edition as saying, "The text of the present translation of Vattel has been carefully compared with that of the original work, in the first edition which appeared, (Londres, 1758, 2 vol. in quarto,) published at Neufchatel; in that of Amsterdam, (Van Harrevelt, 1775, 2 vol. in quarto,) the best known till recently; and in that of M. de Hoffmans, (Paris, 1839, 2 vol. in octavo,) the last and best edition. ...". I don't have the time (or the expertise) to go into this much deeper than that. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The certainty over whether Chester Arthur and Barack Obama were born in Vermont & Hawaii, respectively

I don't think stating that Chester Arthur & Barack Obama were "apparently" born in Vermont & Hawaii, respectively, constitutes the use of "weasel words." The whole section in question is about a controversy as to where they were born; if there is no question as to where they were born, then why does the section exist at all? By simple virtue of the section's existence, we're acknowledging that the location of their birth remains an issue yet to be definitively settled by history. Stating they were "apparently"" born in Vermont & Hawaii respectively, seems to merely acknowledge that a controversy exists, while still favouring the dominant, mainstream view that they were born in Vermont and Hawaii (as the case may be).

My understanding is that Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961, and that his mother was in Mombassa, Kenya at least as recently as late July of 1961 (and that no records exist which provide the definite date of her arrival back to the USA). And more importantly, his birth was not registered with the authorities in Hawaii until several weeks after his birth, while eyewitnesses in Mombassa, who were acquainted with the President's late father, have come forward to claim he was born there. Consequently, the validity of his Hawaiian Birth Certificate is legitimately in question. And interestingly, the Governor of Hawaii issued an executive order to prevent any journalists, or other people, from viewing the original copy of his Birth Certificate at the state archives, which within the larger context of this whole, convoluted political narrative, would be considered very suspicious...ordinarily. Because I have noted these facts, via the use of the term "apparently," it has been strongly implied I am a "birther" (which I didn't really appreciate, since I've never seen the term used when it wasn't being implied that the person in question was also some sort of stupid, ignorant yokel), which is apparently some derogatory term concocted by Democratic Party activists at MSNBC and/or The Huffington Post, used to deride people who don't just automatically assume that any claim by a Democrat should be taken at face value, or something like that. Politicians in both major U.S. political parties lie all the time (there's also some question as to whether Barack Obama may have been born in Kenya, yet sincerely believes he was born in Hawaii; the only person who certainly knew for a fact, his mother, is deceased), and if a woman who was in Kenya at least as recently as late July of 1961, comes forward in late August of 1961, and claims her son was born in Hawaii on August 4th, then I suppose some people believe we should do as the state of Hawaii did in 1961 (and which I doubt they would do today), and simply take her at her word without any documentation. I think, however, that a proper respect for WP:NPOV requires that some degree of skepticism be applied to Stanley Obama's unsubstantiated claim that she was in Honolulu at the time of her son's birth (in light of the fact we know for certain she was in Kenya a few days earlier, and we are uncertain what date she arrived back in the USA).

I don't claim to know whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, or in Kenya. I doubt the issue will ever be proven definitively, and will probably linger for decades, and even centuries (much like the question over whether Chester Arthur was born in Canada or Vermont, or whether James Buchanan was a homosexual, or whether Warren G. Harding had Black African ancestry). To state that Barack Obama was "apparently" born in Hawaii actually strikes me as a compromise that is rather favourable to the orthodox view, since the notion that he was born in Hawaii is not apparent to me at all. He may or may not have been born there, but since all criticism of Barack Obama is apparently tabu in our society, or whatever, we can state he was "apparently" born there, irrespective of there not really being any strong evidence indicating that he was. But most people prefer to believe so anyway. Fine. So he was "apparently" born in Hawaii. Weasel wording? Or merely a refusal to take at face value a self-serving, unsubstantiated assertion from the world's most powerful politician?

As to the Chester Arthur angle, which I suspect no one else really cares about (but since I am more-or-less obsessed with Presidential historical trivia, and have been all my life, I actually do care about it), its also not clear there exists much in the way of actual evidence that Arthur was born in Vermont, but he claims he was, and there is no conclusive evidence he wasn't, hence he "apparently" was born in Vermont. But at this late stage in history, its probably unlikely the issue will ever be definitively settled. The Barack Obama issue generates much greater interest, presumably because it has the potential to lead to a Federal court case wherein the sitting President might be removed from office due to Constitutional ineligibility, but that is really not my concern. I have a keen interest in Presidential history (and for the record, stated many times during the 2008 election that I regarded Barack Obama as preferable to John McCain, although I actually voted for Ralph Nader), and believe the wording of this article should reflect the historical data we presently have at our disposal, not the partisan passions aroused by the political conflicts of the day. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the very definition of weasel words. Saying "apparently" gives undue weight to a fringe theory and obfuscates the fact that Obama actually was born in Hawaii (as has been established by reliable sources). Also, you seem to be mistaken on a number of facts, most notably the urban legend that Obama's mother was in Kenya a few days before his birth. Don't believe everything you read in a chain email. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

When there is significant doubt and concerns in reliable sources that something is true, it can be appropriate to use language that includes weasel words. That's especially true if that same language is used in many of the sources for that topic. When you're talking about that topic on Wikipedia, you use the same language that most sources (consensus) are using. WP:NPOV does not mean giving every viewpoint - it means covering the significant viewpoints without preference. WP:UNDUE further clarifies that while differing views should be covered in relative detail - this means that a minority viewpoint doesn't mean the article should be shaded to include the possibility of the viewpoint. Articles should cover such views in less detail than the main view, even ignoring very small minority views (UNDUE uses the example that the Earth article doesn't refer to the flat earth theory at all). I'd also suggest reading some on the WP:FRINGE page about including such views in articles.

For this article, most sources do refer to the birthplace of Obama and Arthur as being a fact. They might reference a conspiracy theory, but it's quickly dismissed. The majority view is that they were born in Hawaii and Vermont. Given that, the article needs to state that without equivocation. It can (and should) mention that there are some that think otherwise, but the article needs to reflect the view used by the majority of sources.

By including the word "apparently", we'd be given too much weight to a minority/fringe viewpoint. If strong evidence appears, and the views change, then we'd probably need to revisit this, but until then, the article needs to represent the majority view. Using weasel words serves to weaken statements, and are subtle POV shifts on their own. They just don't belong in those places in this article. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Saying "apparently" gives undue weight to a fringe theory and obfuscates the fact that Obama actually was born in Hawaii (as has been established by reliable sources)."

Reliable sources have not "established" that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Sources generally considered reliable have asserted it, but have yet to provide anything akin to definitive evidence to back up their assertions. If The New York Times asserts something without providing proper evidentiary citations, that doesn't necessarily make it true (nor does it disallow for the possibility it may be true, regardless of their inability and/or unwillingness to provide substantiation for their assertion, admittedly). While its true that Barack Obama has a Hawaiian Birth Certificate (issued in 1961 ie., two years after Hawaii achieved full statehood), and thus enjoys the legal rights & privileges of a natural citizen (as is proper), the question is concerning the validity of the issuance of that document, with particular reference to the lack of any apparent basis to believe any of the data transcribed upon it, other than faith in the honesty of Stanley Obama (and of course, within the decidedly relevant context of the Democratic Party-controlled government of Hawaii having taken the very unusual step of refusing to allow journalists, academics, and private citizens to view the original document, which rests in their archives, despite numerous requests - how can that peculiar fact not be taken as a very key aspect of the narrative?).

The so-called "birthers" must prove that Barack Obama's Hawaiian Birth Certificate was issued fradulently (they often make the mistake of assuming Barack Obama is required to prove the validity of his own Birth Certificate; no person with even a modicum of understanding of how the American system of civil justice actually operates could ever find themselves under a similar delusion), if they are to ever press their case that he is Constitutionally ineligible for office. But we are not bound by the strictures of the Federal court system; we are able to acknowledge a degree of amibguity ie., that Barack Obama has a Birth Certificate issued from Hawaii, and is thus legally regarded as a natural citizen, but to simultaneously acknowledge that very real and legitimate questions never-the-less surround the unorthodox manner by which that document was issued, and thus it seems merely apparent that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Hawaii. It is simply not a fact of history, even if it is, for at least the time being (and realistically, likely to remain so in the future) a fact of law.

"Articles should cover such views in less detail than the main view, even ignoring very small minority views (UNDUE uses the example that the Earth article doesn't refer to the flat earth theory at all)."

An exceedingly poor analogy. There exists copious evidence that the Earth is spherical in shape. The evidence that Stanley Obama was in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961 is nonexistent. There is a Hawaiian Birth Certificate that says she was, but it wasn't issued on that day, and the clerk merely transcribed whatever Mrs. Obama related. So the only evidence that Mrs. Obama was in Honolulu on August 4th is her claim that she was, X number of days after the fact. That is no evidence at all.

"By including the word "apparently", we'd be given too much weight to a minority/fringe viewpoint."

While it is surely true that most reliable sources assert that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961, and while it is certainly true that most people agree with those assertions, the truth is never-the-less not a popularity contest. Mainstream sources claim Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961, BUT THEY PROVIDE NOTHING AKIN TO DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSERTION IS ACCURATE! If The New York Times stated the Earth was flat, would we cease to regard the Earth as spherical? It takes more than an assertion from a reliable source; the reliable source must demonstrate its ongoing reliability by providing substantiation for its assertions. The mainstream media states very clearly that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, and then criticizes very harshly anyone who disagrees (which wouldn't really seem to be necessary, unless perhaps they are motivated in their criticism by some fundamental insecurity), but that is all they do. They don't then provide the proof that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu; they merely laugh at those who request proof. The mainstream media is not a priesthood; we do not have to take their pronouncements on faith. And yet, that is excactly what you are asking us to do with respect to this article. The only reason being uncertain about where Obama was born appears to be a fringe perspective (although it seems to be a fringe with tens of millions of domestic adherents, and growing rapidly) is because the very same dominant media outlets which refuse to publish any definitive proof that Barack Obama Jr. was born in Honolulu (presumably because they can not, although I suppose its remotely possible they merely don't wish to), have declared it to be a fringe view. Can you not see the inherently faulty nature of such a circular model of information dissemination?

He was born in Honolulu because the dominant media say he was. They do not provide any proof for this assertion. Failing to believe this unproven assertion marks one as a "fringe" character, who's views can, and ought to be, actively discounted. How is that not insane? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll echo the comments above ... Please read WP:FRINGE as it specifically addresses the concerns you have laid out. Per WP:V, we don't make editorial decisions behind what the RS's are stating without qualification. In short, the RS's don't say "apparantly", so neither do we. thanks, --guyzero | talk 06:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

KevinOKeeffe, you're touching on something that has caused difficulties on WP, and probably always will. What's "proof" for something? When is something "proved"? Relative to this particular case, that's not something easily defined, and it absolutely depends on the person. Some people take the word of the Hawaiian govt employee, others want to physically see and touch a document before they'd be convinced, and even then still have questions. So what's the level for Wikipedia?

The answer is that WP ducks the question totally - WP:V. It's not about "truth", but verifiable, reliable sources. If the majority of such sources accept something, that's what should be included in WP. The example I've seen from another editor was that back in Galileo's day, WP would have said the sun revolved around the earth, because that's what most reliable sources said at that time. We have to follow the same idea here - even if we personally disagree or don't believe something, if most sources say black is actually white, the article on black would describe it as white in color. That's also why nothing is fixed in WP - based on new evidence, that mainstream view can (and has) change. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a little grist for the mill... The vital records for Mr. Obama certainly indicate an Hawaiian birth. Those vital records create a prima facie case for the truth of the facts asserted therein. A prima facie case is not conclusive, but rather may still be rebutted by other evidence. However, the vital record serves to shift the burden of proving otherwise to the party challenging the fact asserted in the vital record. Thus, Mr. Obama has proven he was born in Hawaii, until and unless the "birthers" present evidence to overcome the presumption of a Hawaiian birth. Without commenting on whether I believe there is any reliable rebutting evidence (which would be irrelevant anyway), suffice it to say that according to a recent poll [2], 11% believe Obama was not born in Hawaii and 12% say that they are not sure (23% skeptical). Among Republicans 28% say he was not born in Hawaii and 30% are not sure (58% skeptical). So, although the evidence rebutting the presumption may be thin, those at least skeptical are not a tiny fringe, but a significant segment of the population.Tommylotto (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The lack of documentation is not an argument. The foremost authority on Births in Hawaii has stated publicly that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and provided legal documentation to prove this. That "birthers" claim a lack of documentation does nothing to question the actual birth of Obama. They cannot overturn his legal citizenship. It is totally established by Government Authorities. Citizenship is not retroactive, even if people would hope so. I would add that had a baby Obama been smuggled into the USA without citizenship, that would have been duly noted by authorities. As would have been any minor child accompanying his parents. That people believe Obama is born in Kenya, on Mars, or never existed at all does not bear on his citizenship. That is about some people's misunderstandings of how American citizenship actually works (and would better be place on an article about citizenship misconcepts than Natural born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.64.192 (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama has produced a copy of his COLB. It states that he was born in Honolulu. This logically means that the so-called "long form" birth certificate will also say that he was born there. There is no law that allows Hawaiian authorities to issue a COLB to foreign-born people. There is only a small loophole: Foreign-born people could acquire a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate and US citizenship by producing fake witnesses of their birth in Hawaii. That's what Sun Yat-sen did. That's what Obama's family might have done for him, but we'll never know, because if Obama's long-form birth certificate is actually a "witness-certificate", it would probably raise some additional doubts, but it still wouldn't be proof that he wasn't born in Hawaii. After all and for real: Obama could still have been born somewhere in Honolulu and his birth registered based on witness testimony. The only way (so the birthers believe!) to refute that Obama was born in Hawaii is to present records of a foreign birth, e.g. a Kenyan birth certificate—a valid one! And just for the sake of the argument: If they really find such foreign documents, there would still be the completely official Hawaiian documents, which means: evidence vs. evidence, testimony vs. testimony, official document vs. official document. How do you prove or refute something, when both sides produce documents that are legit? YOU CAN'T! This is what none of the birthers realize. THEY HAVE NO CASE… NO ARGUMENT… NOTHING… IT'S JUST HOT AIR… no matter how they twist and turn the issues. It's all just a conspiracy theory. BECAUSE: Even if Obama was really born in Kenya, it will remain an OFFICIAL FACT that he was born in Hawaii. There is NO WAY to change that, even if there are official documents on a foreign birth. Impossible. The only thing that really matters is what's not a conspiracy theory, but a valid legal and constitutional question that has to this date not been answered by any federal court: Obama's birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act… he was a dual/multiple citizen, and especially a natural-born British subject like his father (cf. Blackstone I.10)… Can a natural-born subject of the British monarch like Obama also be (at the same time) a natural born citizen of the U.S.? That's the real question everyone should ask. BUT NOOOOO… we all love the ruse, the hoax, all those Orly freaks, that huge smokescreen called "foreign birth"/"BC"/"COLB", don't we?! And we just love to forget what really matters here. Bullshit. The world is so full of shit. You are ALL so full of shit… here in your little sandbox… —85.178.76.160 (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

The talk page has been getting longer and longer (over 300k), so I've gone ahead and setup an archive for the page. I've put the initial length to 120 days. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

US citizenship derived through State citizenship

The article as of 17-Aug-09 concludes that the States determine what persons, born within their jurisdiction, are citizens of the State and thereby derive US citizenship. The article cites Dred Scott decision. However, Dread Scott antedates the 14th Amendment which expressly provides US citizenship for anyone born in the US. "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." The States have no authority to deny citizenship to anyone born within their respective jurisdictions.

Of the four alternatives listed, the fourth, stated above, rather than obvious, is obviously false. Consistent with the fourteenth Amendment is answer three: "That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States".

Ppetrel (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the article - it quotes the dissent as one relevant legal opinion, it doesn't endorse it as the last word on the subject. It is worth mentioning that this opinion predates the fourteenth ammendment, though, so I'll add that.VoluntarySlave (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As Will BeBack noted in the edit summary, please be careful when changing quoted material. Your edit also removed not just some of the quote, but the reference to that quote as well. That can make it harder to track down where the quote was from. Also, please be cautious of adding original research. Something along the lines of what you added needs to be backed up by a verifiable, reliable source. There's probably some good areas of improvement in this article - the only legal opinion with it's own section is outdated? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands contains a blatant error. The article states that, "The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States", is correct. The statement is categorically false, and obviously so as it is clearly inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution essentially requires that all persons born in the United States are US citizens. It further requires that all US citizens are citizens in States in which they reside, leaving no discretion to the States. The Fourteenth Amendment does not permit any State to revoke citizenship to a US citizen residing within the State's borders. A State has absolutely no discretion whatsoever in the determination of citizenship within its borders. Indeed, State constitutions e.g., Connecticut, defer to the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution in matters of citizenship.

It should be evident on its face that "all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States" is a true and correct statement.

Furthermore, it should be facially evident that the Fourteenth Amendment supersedes any preexisting case law and negates any precedent so superseded.

The article as it currently stands, is an embarrassment. I hope I do not have to point out this egregious error to my colleagues in the legal field. I'm not interested in re-editing the article. I'm not interested in children's games.Ppetrel (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is US Supreme Court precedent on that point. Post Civil War decisions that hold that the 14 th amendment means what it says. If you are born in the USA you are a citizen. That makes you natural born because you need not be naturalized. The 14th amend also states that if you are naturalized, you are a citizen of the USA. Also if you are born to US citizens abroad, you are a citizen as per Federal Statute. Thus you don't need to be naturalized. This happened to John McCain. He was born abroad on a US Naval base, but his parents are US citizens so McCain was a citizen at the moment of birth. Natuarl born means what it says, born a citizen. If you are not a citizen at birth, you are natural born. LaidOff (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

John Mccain's citizenship is not debatable, however his natural born status I think might be. the insular cases raise some doubts in my mind about his status as a natural born citizen and therefore his right to run for president. If i read these cases correctly there's a difference betwen being BORN A CITIZEN and being NATURALY BORN a citizen. Mccain was born a citizen by law. I have doubts about his NATURAL born status. Alienburrito (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)alienburrito

LaidOff, If you have authority for the proposition that the phrase "natural born citizen" is the same as "citizen at birth" let us know what it is and we will include it. However, that assumption does not merely flow from the words itself. That would be merely your opinion. Tommylotto (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The decision, United States v Rhodes was cited in the SCOTUS case United Stated v Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, which states in part: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States."

Also cited in Ark, Ex parte Chin King, (Circuit Court D. Oregon. June 25, 1888), in part: "By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents."

From United Stated v Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649: “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the **English common law**, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

The Supreme Court of New York in Lynch v. Clarke (1844): "The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not."

SCOTUS on the common law, Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888) “There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. The code of constitutional and statutory construction which therefore is gradually formed by the judgments of this Court, in the application of the Constitution and the laws.”

SCOTUS in Ark, citing Mr. Justice Story in Dred Scott v Sanford: "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."

Common law was established in US law. The Northwest Ordinance (1787) "There shall also be appointed a court to consist of three judges, any two of whom to form a court, who shall have a common law jurisdiction."

The First Session of Congress, Statute I, Chapter XX, Section 11 (1789): "And be it further enacted That the circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity." 99.179.154.72 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It is noted above that the SCOTUS in Ark cited Lynch v Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch 583, interpretation of provisions of the Constitution in light of the common law. One may also consult Lynch regarding another issue: "The right of citizenship, as distinguished from alienage, is a national right or condition. It pertains to the confederated sovereignty, the United States; and not to the individual states.” Lynch v Clarke 1 Sand. Ch. 583" Ppetrel (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

References:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

--74.213.70.230 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Natural-born citizen redirects here, but there is no explanation or definition on what a natural-born citizen actually is. There are all these paragraphs on becoming the President of the United States, which is nice, but what the hell is a NBC? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's a bit harder than a simple answer. The term is introduced in the Constitution, but isn't defined. It's defined somewhat in common law (see the Wong case), and article does touch on that. Basically, if you're born in the US, and not the child of foreign agents (ambassadors, etc), you're an NBC. There's also conditions if you're born outside the US, but to US parent(s). Ravensfire (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn't any universal agreement on exactly what a "natural born citizen" is in US law. Some people believe the term simply means someone who has been a US citizen (through whatever means) since the moment of their birth (no matter where they were born). Other people believe it can only encompass people born on US soil. Still others say it includes only people who were born on US soil and whose parents were born US citizens at the time. And there are additional variations, each with its group of adherents who insist their view is obviously right and all others are obviously wrong. This article attempts to describe the controversy, but it can never do this to everyone's satisfaction because the differing positions are so different and irreconcilable. Richwales (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Róger Calero

Anyone familiar with how his candidacy worked? Did the party not submit him for the ballot in certain states, knowing he would be excluded, or was he submitted and rejected? If rejected, how did they learn of his foreign birth and what was the process for rejecting him? Шизомби (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger Calero received 7,575 votes in the 2008 US Presidential election (and I'm pretty sure he's run previously, as well). He was on the ballot in very few states, although I believe this was due primarily to the fact that he had very little money & organization with which to achieve ballot access, rather than due to any question of the location of his birth.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

June 27, 2004 Associated Press story, via The Standard (Kenya), reported Barack Obama was born in Kenya

Previously, the first two sentences from the sub-section on Barack Obama, from Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned, read as follows:

Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a British subject father from the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom. Before and after the 2008 presidential election, arguments were made that he is not a natural born citizen.

I added the phrase "reports and" prior to the word "arguments," and provided an evidentiary citation ie., a story taken from Kenya's #2 newspaper, which originated with the Associated Press, in a REF tag immediately following the word "reports". This edit does not claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (although obviously the evidentiary citation upon which it is based does), rather it simply provides substantiation for the fact that there have been "reports" (as well as "arguments") which advance the case that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii.

The edit was reverted on the basis of my supposedly going against consensus, but my edit does not violate the consensus. It simply constitutes evidence that a genuine controversy exists. There is no doubt there have been "arguments" made to advance the case Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii (and really, shouldn't there be one or more citations to support that fact, as well, following the word "arguments?"), and there have also been "reports" to that effect, as I have noted with appropriate documentation. An article which details the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's birth should obviously include any reports from reliable sources that state he was not; it documents the existence of the controversy. Without hard evidence that a controversy actually exists, why does this sub-section on Barack Obama's place of birth even exist at all?

There is a controversy surrounding the location of Barack Obama's birth (totally irrespective of whether or not there should be). The fact that such a controversy exists should be substantially documented in a sub-section of the article that deals specifically with that controversy. Perhaps the person who reverted my article simply didn't understand what I was trying to do. If there exist people who claim that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, and that includes reliable sources such as an AP report from 6/27/04, then that fact ought to be documented in a sub-section detailing the controversy itself. Otherwise, how is there even a controversy, if there exist only evidentiary citations on one side of the debate? The existence of the controversy itself must be documented, else there is no evidence for its existence. Everything must be properly sourced.

Again, my edit does NOT make the claim Barack Obama was born in Kenya; it merely documents that reliable sources have made "reports" to that effect, as if it were a fact. How can that conceivably be deemed as not relevant to the topic of this sub-section?

Link to the article itself: http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would leave out what you are trying to add. It is more approriate for the conspiracy/controversey article ect. --Tom (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Tom is referring to is Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎. The "report" you are inserting does not address Natural Born Citizenship at all, it merely claims Kenya born so the inclusion in this sentence is your own synthesis of the source. Please read what bold revert discuss says. It is fine to talk about your addition here, but edit warring to include it and claiming consensus that does not exist does not get this conversation off to a good start. ~~Suggest self-reverting.~~ --guyzero | talk 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Edit, nvm, Tom has reverted you. Please discuss your desired change before reverting. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the citation to the following location: Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Claims_that_Obama_was_not_born_in_Hawaii

Presumably, no one will feel the need to revert a citation claiming that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, taken from a reliable source, and added to a section entitled "Claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii." KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I find that alot of "sub articles" are ceespools where few go and I sure try to stay away from, so no problem here. --Tom (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than the fact that you agree with the claim, on what basis do you call this a reliable source? Had you ever even heard of that source before encountering this story? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

From the sidelines I'll ask, other than the fact that you apparently disagree with the claim on what basis you suggest that the source might be unreliable? The WP article on The Standard (Kenya) says that it is an important newspaper in Kenya with a 20% market share, is Kenya's oldest newspaper, and is owned by The Standard Group, which also runs the KTN Television station.

Offhand, it looks to me as if the unnamed author of the piece might have rushed it into print without checking his facts very thoroughly. I have certainly seen many examples of that in other newspapers which are generally considered to have good editorial judgement. The fact that the article seems to be no longer available at http://www.eastandard.net/, but only via archived copies (e.g., [3] and [4]) might or might not imply something—are you asserting that it ispermissible for WP editors to make editorial inferences from such indications? I think that the archived links are reliable sources that The Standard, an important newspaper in Kenya and Kenya's oldest newspaper, did in fact publish the article making that claim. Whether or not this is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article is another question.

The standard for a WP:RS has nothing to do with what another wikipedia article says about the source. It must be a reliable, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources. Further they should generally be regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. In this instance, I don't see how any of that applies. They may very well be a solid reliable source for articles about Kenya. For articles about U.S. politics and biographies of U.S. citizens, not so much. I'm not sure what their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is, but considering that they spelled his name wrong in the first sentence, It doesn't look glowing. And their "source," a reference to an AP article that never existed doesn't instill a lot of confidence either. The fact that the article has been scrubbed most likely means that it was retracted (which is why it would only exist in an archive....also not a WP:RS, btw.). In any event, it has no relevancy here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do think we also have to take into account the fact the article was about the Senate race and not about where he was born. They merely mention "Kenyan born" as an aside without any substantiation, and it had nothing to do with the thrust of the article. IOW, it might be different if the subject of the article was where he was born, and they were arguing he was born in Kenya, but that's not the case. Further, it certainly doesn't deserve a place in THIS article as THAT article has not been a part of any controversy. If Orly includes that article in any of her court filings, or something of that nature, this might also change. But currently the Standard article has not (to my knowledge) been mentioned in any reliable sources as being an important argument in the conspiracy theory. It's not enough to point out that it could be used that way--it's necessary to show that it has been used that way by reliable sources. Mystylplx (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ankeny versus Governor of the State of Indiana

This is huge:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Here, on November 12th, 2009, the Indiana Appelate Court (Judge Brown, with Judges Crone and May concurring) decides the case on Obama's (but not definitely McCain's , see foot note 15) eligibility on the merits:

"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens."

Working this into the article will have some repercussions, since the Court in foot note 16 also mentions Chester Arthur and uses his presidency as a precedent! (obviously, he cannot be a precedent if he was not NBC - so our conclusion about his elgibility will have to be amended with a mention about Ankeny ). Apart from Wong Kim Ark, the judge also refers to dissent in Dred Scott and to Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983).

If it were to be included, it would need to come from reliable third-party sources. Otherwise, it's just WP:OR. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news, so we do not have to hurry (which is why I put this comment here instead of editing immediately) but at another page someone already provided [5] - no doubt that will not be the last of it. I would want to know what you mean by "third-party" however. Does that mean that any reliable source, which in the past had claimed that these allegations about Obama (and about Chester Arthur) are bogus is out, because it is not "neutral"? That would be indirectly against WP:FRINGE, would it not? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is another link: Seattle Times, mentioning the use of Chester Arthur as precedent. How many do we need? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since that particular source is an opinion piece, WP:RS#Statements of opinion applies. This is probably a better source. Also see this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reword Intro?

Into a rouch definition/summary of what a Natural Born Citizen is rather than what requires it? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. The older meaning of "natural born" is simply a position or status held from birth, so a "natural born citizen" would, in it's simplest meaning, be anyone who was born a citizen. Actually this is not really different from the more modern meaning of "an innate characteristic" since "innate" also means "born with," or "inborn." I think the meanings of the terms should be mentioned in the intro before getting into what the specific legal meaning under U.S. law is.Mystylplx (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama

There is no controversy about the fact that President-Elect Obama had a father who was never a U.S. citizen. In my opinion, this absolutely does not jeopardize Obama's eligibility to be President. However, the fact remains that, at the time the Constitution was written, the prevailing sexist opinion was expressed by Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

I think it's fairly clear that the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the previous prevailing view expressed by Vattel. Either the Citizenship Clause overturned it, or the Equal Protection Clause overturned it. But in any event, I think Obama ought to be added to our list, after McCain. Obama may be the first U.S. president ever born with dual citizenship. Any one else have an opinion about it?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Obama was born in the US, and at least one of his parents was a US citizen, there is no reason to add him to the list. He does not satisfy either criterion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Vattel, he would "follow the condition" of his father. Sexist? Yes. Archaic? Yes. But still, it's pertinent. Obama would be the first president born with dual citizenship. See the discussion of Obama in the Michigan Law Review: Spiro, Peter. “McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method”, Michigan Law Review, Volume 107, page 208 (2008).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How is what one editor describes as the prevailing view of citizenship in the 18th century pertinent to whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in the 21st century? It'd make more sense, rather than discussing his father's citizenship, to discuss the fact that in the 18th century people of African heritage were not considered citizens at all, regardless of where they or their parents were born. Under modern law, in place for over a hundred years, there is no question that Obama is a natural-born citizen. The laws of two hundred years ago were quite different in many respects. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The prevailing view of citizenship in the 18th century is pertinent today for people who interpret the Constitution in a particular way. Additionally, the list of presidential candidates in the article is not a list of candidates who were ineligible when they ran, much less a list of candidates who would be ineligible today.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What was the prevailing view in the 18th century about the citizenship of African Americans born in Hawaii, or even Virginia? What is the "particular way" of viewing the Constitution which makes the 18th century view (pre-14th Amendment) applicable to the 21st century? While a general discussion of how parentage affects citizenship is relevant to this article, it has nothing to do with Obama and the presidency. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave this article as-is for now. I don't think this is a good time to have this discussion. After Obama is securely sworn into office, I think everyone (including you and me) will be a bit more relaxed and less skeptical of motives.

The 14th Amendment arguably amended the meaning of the original Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen Clause." For example, the Equal Protection Clause obviously required that the Natural Born Citizen Clause must not be used in a racially discriminatory manner (and possibly likewise for a gender-discriminatory manner). At the same time, many of the framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly said that they did not intend to automatically give birthright citizenship to children of foreigners. It's all in the dissent by Justice John Marshall Harlan in the leading case (Wong Kim Ark). Look, I'm not saying that Harlan's dissent is controlling today, or that stuff congressmen and senators said in 1866 overrides the actual language of the 14th Amendment. The meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment is still a subject of immense dispute today (especially as regards so-called anchor babies), and even if it were not in dispute I still feel that the undisputed birth of President-Elect Obama as a "dual citizen" is notable for this article. No president has ever been born with dual citizenship, AFAIK, and it's notable. That's all. Doesn't mean I'm trying to undermine Obama, or criticize him, or anything like that. I was for McCain, but I'll be for my President too. Period.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on dual citizen, which is mostly unrelated to being a "natural-born citizen". For example, U.S. citizens of Irish heritage are eligible to apply for Irish citizenship, making them dual citizens. Likewise for people of Japanese descent. Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, and he was born on U.S. soil, so he is a natural-born citizen under any possible construction of the 14th Amendment. Nothing about Obama's citizenship seems relevant to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether people can apply for dual citizenship is not relevant to this article. Obama had dual citizenship at birth, which is very different from applying long after birth. I agree with you 1000000% that it is frivolous to argue that Obama's dual citizenship at birth means he is not a Natural-Born Citizen. This article is not contending that Barry Goldwater was not a natural born citizen, or that George Romney was not a natural born citizen. We can mention Obama without suggesting that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. The simple fact remains that Obama would not be a Natural Born Citizen under the Slaughterhouse decision quoted in the present article, or under the dissenting opinion of Harlan in Wong Kim Ark that's quoted in this article. And there's also been a minor kerfuffle about Obama's dual citizenship at birth, it's gone to the Supreme Court twice (in the Denofrio and Wrotnowski cases), and it's mentioned a billion times in reliable sources. It's fringy, but notable.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is only a guess but given that George Washington was born prior to US independence in what would then have been a British dominion, he was a British subject by birth. I'm pretty it wasn't possible to renounce being a subject at the time no he was a dual national when he became president. So too were John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.

Obama was born in the United States and is undeniably a Natural-Born Citizen. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a grandfather clause in the Natural Born Citizen Clause that covered those first several presidents. And I agree with you that Obama is undeniably a Natural-Born Citizen. Have I said otherwise? I also believe that Barry Goldwater and George Romney and John McCain have undeniably been Natural Born Citizens. But there are reasonable people who disagree, there is conflicting hstorical evidence about the Constitution's meaning on this point, and the information we have is incomplete.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

President Chester A. Arthur's father was a British Citizen when Chester was born. Obama is the 2nd president born with dual citizenship.74.249.43.117 Kevin (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The only difference is that in Chester Arthur's case nobody knew about it. —85.178.84.119 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of facts is being engaged in within this article about "natural born citizenship" and the basic facts as to why Obama's has been challenged. No factual information as to the reason Obama's natural born citizenship is being allowed into the paragraph about the fact that Obama's natural born citizenship has been challenged. The following lines have been repeated deleted, "Various charges have been made in the last year that he is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. including disputes as to his actual location of birth and that he is not a natural born citizen since his father was not a citizen. He was born to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Kenya who was not a U.S. citizen." There is nothing factually inaccurate in those lines and they are not disputed by Obama himself or his campaign. They are the basis for most of the charges that his is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. To only allow Obama's campaign's responses to some charges, i.e., the birth certificate issue, as being the only or main reason his name rightfully is listed here with Presidents and Presidential candidates who have had their natural born citizenship status challenged is pure one-sided censorship. Mtngoat63 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not censorship for us to keep articles on topic. This article is to explain the concept and Constitutional requirement of "natural-born citizen". You're propounding the theory that, in 1961, a particular American college student flew from Hawaii to Kenya, gave birth there, brought the infant back to Hawaii, and registered the birth in Hawaii. Whether this event occurred or not doesn't shed much light on the general Constitutional issue. The facts concerning this one particular birth belong in the more specific article about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Those facts belong in this article only to the extent that they help the reader understand the general concept, which for the most part they don't. The reader who wants to know more about President-Elect Obama's circumstances can follow the wikilink to that article. JamesMLane t c 22:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum. I've rewritten the Obama paragraph to try to fit it better to the entire article. From the point of view of understanding "natural-born citizen", whether Ann Dunham gave birth in Kenya is unimportant. What's really added in the Obama case is Donofrio's argument that Obama was a citizen at birth but nevertheless wasn't a natural-born citizen, so we should mention that. Also, because the controversy is ongoing (at least in the sense that Berg, Keyes, and other litigants continue to tilt at this windmill), we should note its current status (that so far the challenges have failed). JamesMLane t c 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Obama may be the first U.S. president ever born with dual citizenship." I very much doubt this. Chester A. Arthur's father was an Irish subject when Chester was born. I'm told that one can claim Irish citizenship from a grandparent.Kevin (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note, also, that Spiro Agnew (Nixon's VP, for those who might be too young to remember) had a Greek immigrant father, and may very possibly have been considered a Greek citizen/subject under Greek law, regardless of whether Agnew himself ever thought of himself as such. Similarly, Michael Dukakis (the 1988 Democratic Presidential nominee) was born of Greek immigrant parents. I don't recall even the small minority who put forth ultra-strict definitions of "natural born" objecting to either of these men's eligibility at the time. Basing presidential eligibility on dual citizenship could be tricky at best, and hazardous at worst, given that other countries can declare someone to be one of their citizens based on their own laws (!), and without any care or regard for US law. Richwales (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As was mentioned above, in Arthur's case, no one knew at the time about his father. Hence this point is mute. Outback the koala (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The only real issue is "What did "natural born citizen" mean when the Constitution was ratified?" Resort to Supreme Court cases interpreting it afterwards and statutes passed afterwards are irrelevant. Vattel does provide the best source for understanding the term. But, the crux of it is this: The purpose of the clause is to prevent a president who has any possibility of split loyalties and responsibilities from being elected president. With that in mind, the day Obama was born, wherever he was born, he owed as much loyalty to the country of his father as he did to that of his mother. He is not a "natural born citizen" with loyalty owed only to the US, he is a dual citizen who is just as subject to the jurisidiction of his father's country as to his mother's. JPStrikes (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC) JPStrikes (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

An interesting (and decidely fringe) theory, but one which is not supported by any court or, for the purposes of this article, any reliable source. - --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

^ http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=%22alien+parents%22#PPA247,M1

[1] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=%22alien+parents%22#PPA247,M1

[1]