Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Diacritical usage against wikilaw and English

The names "Christopher Schürmann" and "Róger Calero" contain diacritics. The are not allowed in English nor by wikilaw. Should be fixed. Presidentbalut (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee's decision in the GoodDay case strongly suggests that the sort of rule you are trying to cite here simply does not exist. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Legal concepts not sufficiently considered

There are certain basic legal concepts which should be more carefully considered in this piece than a reading of it suggests:

1, There is no surplus verbiage in the Constitution; every word has meaning

2. The Congress has no power to limit or expand the Constitution except by amendment thereto.

3. The Constitution is to be interpreted as written, with the words defined as they then were.

These concepts should be applied throughout this piece, or, at least, mentioned in a number of areas.

Using this logic, the term "natural born citizen" does not mean merely "citizen", nor even "citizen by birth", but something more. The only information offered is that of the 1758 treatise quoting from the law of nations (which treatise would certainly have been known to the founders); this is the only evidence of their intent presented, but more evidence should be sought.

Court decisions and/or subsequent commentary by politicians of dubious familiarity with the issues should be questioned, at the very least; some should be omitted entirely, especially when different issues were involved than those of Article II, Section 1.

As it stands, this piece does not have a scholarly appearance, but has the appearance of newspeak. 68.116.150.61 (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Find reliable secondary sources discussing the above, and then it can be considered for inclusion as one of many viewpoints (per our Neutral Point of View policy). An individual Wikipedia editor's reasoning or musing cannot be included (per our policy of No Original Research) unless it can be found in reliable secondary sources. Merely citing the Constitution (a primary source) and asserting that it self-evidently means something is "original research". Speculating that the Founding Fathers must obviously have been referring to De Vattel's treatise, The Law of Nations, for the meaning of "natural-born citizen", is original research and/or synthesis of multiple sources. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Anon's argument is well taken. His critique of the article is accurate. Especially the part about 'newspeak'. Richwales' answer however does not seem relevant to Anon's post, like he did not understand it. Richwales seems more interested in using his official sounding verbiage to try to scare Anon away (an indicator common to article campers). But Anon doesn't sound like he came here to edit, merely to criticize the editors and the unscholarliness of the article. Anon doesn't realize, it seems, that Wikipedia articles are not professionally written, they are rather written (and re-written) by what amounts to a committee of volunteers, many of them amateurs, government and political propagandists, and academics with agendas. The dispensation of accurate knowledge to the public is often way down the list of motivations for Wikipedia editors contributions unfortunately. I recommend Anon engage his studies on the site of a real encyclopedia if he wishes to avoid disappointment and insults to his intelligence. Britcom 11:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In all the time it took you to write that, you couldn't locate a single reliable source substantiating anon's claims? Because that would get you a lot further than circuitous rhetoric. BTTP: Find. Reliable. Sources. --AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

¶ The suggestion that there is a distinction between 'native born citizen' (or 'someone born inside the US') and 'natural born citizen' is unsupported by American legal authority. Repeatedly US legal authority has treated 'natural born citizen' as 'someone born here', without any additional requirement such as the parents' nationality. Sussmanbern (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mitt Romney, his forebears, and Mexican citizenship

This edit removed material asserting that Mitt Romney was is not a Mexican citizen. Rather than re-add the removed negative assertion with a supporting cite, I'll mention the supporting cite here. See Could Mitt Romney be America's first Hispanic president? by Ruben Navarrette Jr., January 14, 2012, CNN.com which says, "Miles Park Romney [Mitt Romney's grandfather] never became a Mexican citizen, and neither did his son, Gaskell, or grandson, George [Mitt Romney's father]. They were all denied Mexican citizenship because statutes on the books in Mexico denied that right to American settlers and their offspring." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Good enough RS; I say revert, with this cite. --Weazie (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Conspicuous lack of eligibility

A number of birther lawsuits related to Obama were made against various public officials related to state and federal elections on the grounds that they failed to, or should, insist on the documentation of Obama's birth before allowing him on the ballot. These were all rejected on the ground that no law requires the officials to make such demands of a candidate and that the certification by the candidate or his party was accepted as true. In contrast, there have been instances where candidates were rejected from the ballot because of CONSPICUOUS and up-front evidence that they were not eligible. For example, In re Garst (Albany Cnty Supm Ct. 10/2/1968) 57 Misc.2d 1040, 294 NYS2d 33, in which the would-be electors for the Electoral College for Presidential (Peace & Freedom Party) candidate Eldridge Cleaver sued because they and their candidate were excluded from the 1968 ballot in New York; the court noted that Cleaver (who openly identified himself as born on August 31, 1935) was conspicuously ineligible because he was not, and would not attain, the requisite age of at least 35 years (he would not be 35 y.o. until Aug. 31, 1970, fully a year-and-a-half after Inauguration Day) and thereffore upheld the exclusion from the ballot. It would not have been so conspicuous, and therefore the plaintiffs might have won, if his 35th birthday had fallen after Election Day but before Inauguration Day, because the Constitution was unclear on the deadline for the 35th birthday. In the case of Obama, there was a Hawaiian birth certificate, whose authenticity was attested by numerous Hawaiian officials of both parties, so there was no conspicuous (or even plausible) reason to doubt his US birth. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor v. Happersett

I would very much like to add a few sentences explaining away the Happersett decision, which has been quoted and misrepresented by "birthers", but wonder if that is appropriate. I would appreciate some guidance. Sussmanbern (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up before — see, for example, the lengthy discussion from 2012 at Talk:Minor v. Happersett. The consensus at that time was that since no reliable sources discuss Minor v. Happersett at all in connection with the meaning of the natural-born citizen clause, the issue is not notable enough for us to mention in Wikipedia. You'll see, from the 2012 talk-page discussion, that I disagreed with this view and thought some mention was appropriate, but the consensus clearly went the other way. Consensus can, of course, change over time (see WP:CCC), so if people decide now that Minor really is worth mentioning here after all, that would certainly be OK (as long as there is a consensus for doing it now). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that a consensus for mentioning Minor v. Happersett could override Wikipedia's core verifiability / sourcing policies. Any decision now to mention Minor would presumably need to be based on newly discovered sources, and/or in a reevaluation of existing sources. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am one of the editors who believed -- and continues to believe -- that the birther interpretation of Minor is fringe and shouldn't be introduced just to be rejected. It is better writing to not include it. The two-citizen-parent rule is rejected in the article (but without citing Minor by name). --Weazie (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

¶ Just to clarify to anyone who may read this decades hence: In Minor v. Happersett (1875) 88 US (21 Wall.) 162 at 167-168, 22 L.Ed 627 at 628, in which the issue was whether a woman born in the US was a 'citizen' and, if so, was she entitled to vote despite a state law limiting voting to male citizens (the Court said yes to citizen, no to voting), the Supreme Court briefly mentioned different suggestions as to what constituted a citizen - and mentioned that, regarding people born in the US but to non-citizen parents "there have been doubts .... For the purposes of this case [which did not involve such a person] it is not necessary to solve these doubts." This has been distorted by birthers into an explicit denial of citizenship to someone born to one or both non-citizens, but in fact it deliberately does not decide that because it was not an issue in the case. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have clearly decided such people are citizens. Sussmanbern (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for Hollander v. McCain

As much as I respect my own web site, and as flattered as I am to be cited in the Wikipedia, Obama Conspiracy Theories really is not a suitable reference for the Wikipedia. The other source for Hollander v. McCain is a reference to court filings and those are iffy as a source. A better reference should be found for that material. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The quote in the lead and the quote in its supporting cite

I have redone the quoted text in this edit, the edit summary of which began, "Copy exactly from cited source. ...".

Cutting the final paragraph from the Summary page of the cited source and pasting it below:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

I have also pasted that version into the article except that I have recast the doublequotes in the quoted text as straight doublequote symbols instead of slanted. I have highlighted the word which differs between the two versions in yellow above. Prior to my edit, that word read in the article as foreign, not as alien as it reads in the quoted source.

I have done the same with the third paragraph on that page in the source, which is quoted in the cite. None of the words there differ between the two versions. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the word "alien" while I was trying to fix the quotes. Here is how nested quotes are done in Wikipedia. For shorter quotes, or when the software does not provide for indenting the quote, the quoted material is put in double quotes. Any double quotes that were put in by the author of the source are changed to single quotes. For longer quotes, if the software allows, the quote is indented, instead of surrounding the material with double quotes. For indented quotes, any double quote marks put in by the author of the source are left untouched.

Since the quote that appears in the body of the article is indented; the quote marks in that part are left as the original, except curly quotes are changed to straight quotes.

The quoted paragraph that appears in the footnote is surrounded by double quotes, which are inserted by the citation template. Since the software doesn't provide any way to indent this paragraph, and it is surrounded by double quotes, all the double quotes within it should be changed to single quotes. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This Article is pretty well Impenetrable

I think a summary section on this article would be a good idea. Or at least something that makes it more... readable. To someone without a law degree. Considering this is the redirect for any United States natural-born citizen stuff, it'd be nice if there was actually any indication of the current consensus on what it means, or something. I mean, even after reading the entire article I'm still a little bit confused. Is this whole issue actually this contentious, or is this article just really unclear? Manic Oppressive (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to serve as an introduction and summary, per WP:LEAD. I reread it quickly and it seems to me that it does that OK, but then I'm an American and am somewhat familiar with the topic. Yes, the topic can get contentious -- see e..g., Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Perhaps some specific criticisms of or suggestions about the article might be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should summarize the article. With fresh eyes, you may be able to spot areas where we can improve the article and the lead. Please make suggestions here.

The article and subject are indeed quite controversial, and even many Americans don't understand it, so don't feel bad. We'd like the article to clear up misunderstandings and be informative, so please help us improve it. Because of its controversial nature, please suggest any controversial edits here first to avoid edit warring. We'll be happy to work with you, and.... welcome to Wikipedia! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Automatic archiving of this Talk page.

It appears that this talk page is automatically archived about a month after a comment is made (unless another comment addresses that comment - in which case, the clock begins again):

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 months may be automatically moved.

Miszabot I is an inactive Wikipedia bot whose actions are being handled by lowercase sigmabot III:

All archiving tasks which used to be performed by the MiszaBots are now performed by lowercase sigmabot III

Whatever bot or mechanism is used, posts on this talk page are only visible for about a month before being automatically archived. This topic (the Natural-born-citizen clause) is again in the news and it appears will remain so for the foreseeable future; the issue has been raised not just with regard to Ted Cruz, but also , with regard to Bobby Jindal & Marco Rubio.

I am actually looking to see if there is a less "newsy" discussion section - on Chester A Arthur because I find the article's section on Arthur a little confusing and it doesn't quite match up with the discussion in the article on Chester A Arthur. I think this section needs some editing. Anyway, that's a topic that I can't fully address without seeing what's already been discussed - unless I just risk reinventing the wheel. Even then, if I don't get a response to my discussion within a month, few people will see my editorial concerns because it will be auto archived in a month.

(1) I would like to request less frequent archiving of the Talk page. There may have been a need for this during the height of the "Birther" claims, but I don't see such a need now. I realize there's a search feature, but that may be hit or miss, depending on what key words are searched. I did see there's an index page for the archive which I discovered when I searched for "Chester Arthur." The same bot is run on the page re: Obama birther claims, but it permits comments to remain for two months before archiving. (2) Can the index of the Talk page be left as a permanent part of the talk page? (3) How are determinations made and by whom as to whether to have automatic archiving? Is this discussed on the Talk page where archiving is proposed or, elsewhere? If elsewhere, where? (4) If the "gentle reader" knows this is not the right place to post these concerns and knows where I should post them, please let me know. Ileanadu (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Trump comments

I'm not convinced that we should have Trump's comments on Cruz'e eligibility in this article. It boils down to Trump has zero expertise on the matter and no background for it. He's not an expert on citizenship or law. I realize it's a fairly widely reported comment, but for this article, that doesn't matter. We should restrict this article to comments from people with expertise in the area. Consider that while we note lawsuits from Orly Taitz, we don't include any comments from her (thankfully ...). Trump's comments are more appropriate in an article on Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, especially as he's a potential competitor. Ravensfire (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. For two reasons. First, here is what Trump said "If he was born in Canada, perhaps not. I don’t know the circumstances. I heard somebody told me he was born in Canada. That’s really his thing.” He said it once, when Jonathan Karl asked him about Cruz. While often cited, it all comes back to these four sentences in this one interview. Second, Trump is not mentioned at all, despite being front and center, in the discussion on Pres. Obama's citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.7.134 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also agree with omitting Trump's comments, at least for the moment. Trump's statement (which can be found in several sources other than the one originally cited) is so vague and noncommittal that, IMO, it is meaningless. Now, if Trump ends up saying something better-informed and more definite at some later date, then that newer statement may very possibly merit inclusion here — yes, I know my suggestion is itself pretty vague and noncommittal, but until/unless Trump says more, it's impossible to say more than this. Trump is admittedly not an expert on citizenship law, but he is widely notable, and for that reason anything he's reported as having said about anything may well end up being worth mentioning. But this particular statement of Trump's is essentially content-free, so I see no real need to include it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Just thought to check this - Trump said quite a bit about Obama's eligibility in previous years, far more than he's said here. But we don't mention anything of it here. Again, Trump isn't an expert on this and his comments don't belong here. They belong on the specific campaign article or, as happened with Obama, an article split off from the campaign. EDIT: Head slap - and our IP editor made basically the same point above and didn't look to read it because I was so focused on adding my comment. My thanks to 107.0.7.134 and apologies for an apparent attempt to steal thunder. Ravensfire (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Agree. I don't know who is proposing to include anything by or about Donald Trump, but if anything, that should be added to the article on Donald Trump if someone cares so much about his periodic complaints about the eligibility of presidential candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ileanadu (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's what Trump said today: "It’s a hurdle; somebody could certainly look at it very seriously . . . He was born in Canada. If you know and when we all studied our history lessons, you are supposed to be born in this country, so I just don't know how the courts will rule on this." Trump's expertise (and correctness) isn't relevant; he is clearly "questioning" Cruz's eligibility. The section in the article is entitled "Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned," and the citation explains who is doing the questioning. It is weak writing to hide behind "was questioning" without briefly explaining who the questioner is. (Obama is different because there are already multiple wikipedia articles about who (and how) his eligibility was questioned.) --Weazie (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I continue to believe that Trump's questioning of Cruz's eligibility is relevant because it helps explain who is questioning. I have also included a recent article in which Orly Taitz and Larry Klayman (both attorneys) have said that Cruz is ineligible. --Weazie (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Barack Obama and Hawaiian birth

This edit caught my eye. The edit summary says, "Barack Obama: the fact that it's the capital is irrelevant, the fact that Hawaii had recently become a state is". Actually, I don't think it is relevant (see Hawaiian_Organic_Act#Citizenship), but it may be of interest. There is some discussion elsewhere in this article about whether birthright U.S. citizens born in U.S. territories are "natural born citizens". If Hawaii's territorial status just a few hears prior to Obama's birth is mentioned, perhaps the State vs. Territory issue ought to be mentioned here with tone a similar to its mentions elsewhere in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur. It is relevant that Hawaii was a state when Obama was born there; it is not relevant that it had recently became a state. --Weazie (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795

Here I have redone a clarification and added a couple of supporting cites. I have retained the wording change from "superseded" to "repealed", as the first cite does explicitly say "repealed". Hoewever, I have redone the wording change to "... which explicitly excluded the phrase 'natural born' and defined such children only as 'citizens.'" from the previous wording saying "... which did not mention the phrase 'natural born citizen.'" In looking at the content at the second added citation, I see that Section 3 there group children born abroad to US citizen parents together with children born in the US to parents who are naturalized US citizens for purposes of defining their citizenship status. I don't want to try to interpret that, but taking one of those two classes of children out of its context there to speak of it here in isolation from the other class doesn't seem entirely proper. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal

Since this is an article about the Constitutional clause itself, not conspiracy theories like the birther article, shouldn't we base it on actual reliable sources? The Birchers were widely seen as loon fringe back when Goldwater was running. 2600:1006:B112:31C6:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The New American is cited in other wikipedia articles; it would appear to be a reliable source. Taitz, however, has also said Jindal was not eligible, so I've swapped in her doubts. --Weazie (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if I had to choose between citing Orly Taitz or the John Birch Society here, I would be more inclined to cite the JBS. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

All things being equal, I'd say they were equally ignorable. But Taitz is at least covered by U.S. News & World Report rather than the self-published organ of a political advocacy group. I wonder, though, if it's really necessary to have separate coverage of each current case, repeating essentially the same birther viewpoint for each. 2600:1006:B112:31C6:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I was also thinking that Rubio and Jindal could be combined. (Apuzzo also thinks Jindal is ineligible, but there's no reliable source for that.) I think Cruz deserves his own entry because the basis for questioning him is different, and the topic with respect to him has garnered more coverage. Weazie (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in the 2011 Tampa Bay Times article (where Solum's "aren't crazy" quote appears), Apuzzo is discussed, and the article says "birthers" think Jindal isn't qualified. Although Apuzzo isn't specifically referenced, it does (accurately) imply that is his position. So I think Rubio and Jindal could be combined into one section. (For the time being; that may change depending on if challenges are filed against them.) Weazie (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

We need discussion and consensus here

Kungfuw, Weazie, Jc3s5h, 2600:1006:b14d:a3c0:b945:d20a:9451:85d (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 66.108.80.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): I would strongly recommend that you discuss your differing visions for this article and try hard to reach some sort of consensus. Regarding consensus, please remember that consensus can change — the fact that some agreement was made a long time ago does not necessarily mean it must never change and cannot be reconsidered (though the proper approach in such cases is to discuss the point and seek a new consensus).

You may wish to review the guidelines for the lead section, and possibly consider summarizing the lengthy quote currently in the lead and moving the quote farther down into the body of the article. If people simply continue edit warring rather than repeatedly try to impose their own opinion regarding how this article should read, the situation is likely to escalate into blocks, pending changes protection, or even full protection of the article until a true consensus emerges.

Regarding blocks, I will note here that Kungfuw has just been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3-revert rule. See here, here, here, and here; the third of these four edits, made from an IP address, is likely to have been in fact performed by Kungfuw (see this comment by Jc3s5h). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Like the last time this came up: The quoted 2011 CRS language is a correct, accurate, and succinct summary of the topic, which is why it is in the lede -- to provide clarity for the reader. Concerns about giving undue weight to the 2011 CRS report are reasonable; it would be acceptable to paraphrase it in the lede, with the full quotation in the body of the article. (There could even be an inline citation to the 2011 CRS report in the lede.) But simply blanking the quoted language creates ambiguity where none exists. --Weazie (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The commentary by Katyal and Clement in the Harvard Law Review "Forum", already cited in the article, seems to say the same thing as the CRS source. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

They do. Quoting, paraphrasing, or citing them in the lede would be equally acceptable. But straight blanking weakens the article; it does not improve it. --Weazie (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's appalling that one user's pet quote is promoted to the lede of this article under his/her personal opinion that it's a good succinct summary. How does that constitute consensus? Is he/she a superuser here or something? I happen to think Wong Kim Ark is a better summary. Is it okay if I put my favorite quote in the lede? -- FrankLWorth — Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To start the move toward consensus, there are a few facts we can agree upon:

a. The 2011 Congressional Research Service interpretation of the clause was written by the Congressional Research Service. Agreed? b. The article contains a section on the interpretations by the Congressional Research Service. Agreed? c. Therefore, the 2011 quote should be represented in that section by virtue of a and b above for purposes of completion. I will place a copy of the 2011 CRS opinion in that section. I will not remove it from the lede until I or others provide adequate reasoning why its placement in the lede is personal promotion and inappropriate. FrankLWorth — Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Reasons why the 2011 CRS opinion should not be promoted to the lede in this article. Reason One: Wikipedia style. The definition of NBC is unsettled. There may be prevailing or currently popular defintions. In other Wikipedia articles on historical unsettled matters, no single user's opinion appears in the lede. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper. Note in that extensive lede no user's opinion as to the Ripper's identity appears. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Borden. Note that in that lede no user's opinion as to Borden's guilt appears. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_the_Iron_Mask. In that lede, competing theories exist, again not just one user's opinion. Can we agree on the above statements? FrankLWorth

Reasons why the 2011 CRS opinion should not be promoted to the lede in this article. Reason Two: This has already been discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural-born-citizen_clause/Archive_5#Citation_to_Congressional_Research_Service_Report. My reading of that discussion is that a clear consensus existed to remove the 2011 CRS opinion quote from the lede and place it in the CRS section. In that discussion, users Bracton and Richwales argued against its inclusion, while user Weazie argued for it. I add my voice in agreement with users Bracton and Richwales, and I believe user kungfuw would also agree. I conclude that a reasonable interpretation of the consensus of that discussion is the four users against its inclusion, not the one in favor of it. Can we agree on that? FrankLWorth

The definition of the natural-born-citizen clause is not "unsettled." There are some minor disagreements and fringe beliefs; neither ought to be referenced in the lede.

Your reading of the last discussion is inaccurate, and entirely your own. Using the 2011 CRS report in the lede was the result of previous consensus of multiple editors agreeing that it is an accurate and concise summary. Even back then, I said it was unnecessary that the 2011 CRS report be quoted; nothing better, however, emerged from that discussion. It would be fine if a new consensus suggests that something comparable is quoted, paraphrased, or cited, provided that it informs and educates the reader. Again, straight blanking does not do that.

Wong Kim Ark is a seminal case on the subject, and a reference to it in the lede might be a good idea. Quoting it in the lede, however, is not as useful because it does not directly speak to those born outside of the United States. Which is why the 2011 CRS report or Katyal and Clement's article are better summaries of the entire topic, as they discuss scenarios that Wong Kim Ark did not. Weazie (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Weazie, You must know that the issue will not be settled until the Supreme Court settles it. The Supreme Court, and it alone, interprets the Constitution. Do you disagree with that? Further, I find no "consensus of multiple editors" in the discussion. The only editors are you and a few others who disagree with you. Please list the multiple editors you mention because I would like to include them in this discussion. Weazie, I am pushing a neutral lede. You, on the other hand, are pushing a specific interpretation of the clause. FrankLWorth

Proposed Neutral Lede Having now read the WP position on leads, I agree with it. I note that "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view."

I propose the following, which in my opinion meets WP's goal. I urge Richwales, Bracton, Kungfuw, Weazie, Jc3s5h and other interested readers to weigh in. I would like to establish consensus before making any changes.

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

The Constitution does not define the phrase "natural-born citizen," and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.

FrankLWorth

* DISAGREE with the proposed edit, as it is just blanking of relevant information. Multiple reliable sources, such as the CRS and law professors, agree it is generally settled that a citizen at (or by) birth is a natural-born citizen. It does not violate WP:NPOV to note this general consensus. There is no reason to not highlight this conclusion in the lede, as doing so informs and educates -- "the lead should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at content that follows". The lack of a Supreme Court decision denotes only there has been no decision by that court, which is a fact worthy of noting in the lede (and is already so noted). But the lack of a Supreme Court decision does not mean the issue remains unsettled or otherwise the subject of a legitimate controversy. Weazie (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

* AGREE with the proposed edit. It is balanced, factual, and in keeping with WP rules, neutral.FrankLWorth

* AGREE with reservation. An extensive direct quote in the lead is inappropriate and misleading. However, I do agree that a neutral summary is preferable. I'll submit some suggestions of such.Kungfuw (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Kungfuw

Please do suggest a summary. Weazie (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote, Weazie. However, I can't take it seriously until you cite the "Multiple reliable sources" for your point of view. Can you provide them as indication that consensus is on your side? Did you know that the recent Harvard Law Review article does not even mention the CRS at all? If the CRS opinion were as central as you say, don't you agree that the Law Review would at least mention it? Weazie, I have asked repeatedly for you to supply concrete evidence for your point of view and the handles of other Wikipedia users that agree with you. And I ask you again, do you understand the unique role of the Supreme Court as the only decider of Constitutional disputes? Further, are the ledes on Jack the Ripper, Lizzie Borden, The Man in the Iron Mask, and many other articles here also wrong because they don't present a conclusion in the lede? I am trying to be reasonable and factual, but I find that you will not respond. Amended Lede Proposal: If Weazie is correct and the issue is settled, I require that the lede be amended to preface the CRS quote with the phrase "It is settled that ". I ask other WP users to please join this discussion. FrankLWorth

I don't agree with FrankLWorth's statement "And I ask you again, do you understand the unique role of the Supreme Court as the only decider of Constitutional disputes?" Some issues are non-justiciable. Since the 12th amendment calls for the votes of the Electoral College to be counted in joint session, and for the House of Representatives to choose the president if no candidate receives a majority, it's conceivable that the Supreme Court would decide that the issue of eligibility is to be determined by the Electoral College, the Congress, or the House of Representatives, or might simply decide it is non-justiciable without saying which political entity is to decide. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The article cites the CRS and law professors Gabriel J. Chin, Lawrence Solum, Ronald Rotunda, Polly Price, Eugene Volokh, Daniel Tokaji, Edward White, Paul Clement, Neal Katyal, and Peter Spiro for the holistic proposition that the issue is generally settled. You nor anyone else has provided a reliable source to the contrary. --Weazie (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Jc3s5h. I disagree with you about the Supreme Court and still maintain that it and it alone has the final word on Constitutional controversies. However, I respect your opinion. Weazie, the article itself contains several interpretations of the clause. If anything the article provides greater indication that it is not settled. Weazie's placement of the CRS opinion in the lede makes the lede contradict the rest of the article. FrankLWorth

Without specific examples, I have no idea to what you refer. Weazie (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Reason Three: Occam's razor. The 2011 CRS opinion in the lede is forcing us to remove it from the section on CRS opinions, where it is relevant and important. Therefore, that section of the article is now incomplete and inaccurate. When a lede causes other areas of an article to be made inaccurate, how can such a lede stand? FrankLWorth

Consensus sought: The CRS section of this article should contain all known relevant opinions issued by the CRS. Regardles of where else the quote should or should not be, can we agree that the CRS section is incomplete without at least a reference to it? Readers who skip to that section will not be aware of its existence. FrankLWorth

*Agree. Such an important quotation must exist in the CRS section, regardless of wherever else it is cited. Kungfuw (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Kungfuw

Consensus sought: The definition of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution is resolved, settled, and agreed upon. That is Weazie's contention. I believe that contention is inaccurate. FrankLWorth

*Disagree. There is some general agreement, but I find no sources that claim the issue is settled and resolved. Example: "Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen." One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen). Wex acknowledges that debate exists. Note also that Wex's "consensus" differs from the CRS's "consensus."

Wex is a collaborative dictionary; its authors are unknown. It also fails to identify with any specificity who disagrees, and about what. It is of dubious reliability, and certainly is not a secondary source. Weazie (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why you insist on making this personal: assume good faith and be civil. Weazie (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize, Weazie. I feel no animus toward you. I referenced you in the quote since you are the only person so far pressing for its inclusion. I will not do so in the future and will edit out previous references. I maintain, however, that promoting the opinion you wish to promote violates fact, neutrality, and Wikipedia rules, and renders other areas of the article incomplete and inaccurate. FrankLWorth

Since I recently intervened here in an administrative capacity, I have hesitated to weigh in heavily on the content of this article right now. I do have some thoughts here, but I'll discuss them in general terms, most likely without any efforts to edit the article itself. This also means I probably won't do any more admin actions on this article for the time being, so as not to risk any appearance of violating the rules regarding "involved" administrators.

I do feel it would be better to move the lengthy Congressional Research Service quote out of the lead section and into the appropriate section about halfway into the article — and include a summarization / paraphrase of the CRS conclusion in the lead instead of an actual quote.

I also believe it would be better for the lead to acknowledge that the CRS position, while arguably the majority view, is not the only interpretation worthy of mention. Gabriel Chin's questioning the "natural-born" status of John McCain, for example, may be a minority view, but not a whacko-fringe view. Similarly, although Lawrence Solum proposes that natural-born citizenship for all jus soli citizens at birth is the "conventional view" and the "much stronger argument", he also said those who believe natural-born citizenship requires two citizen parents "weren't crazy". The NPOV policy tells us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" — and in this situation, I believe NPOV requires us to at least mention in the lead that reputable legal scholars do honestly differ on the question.

Also, I would like FrankLWorth to note that the commonly accepted way of "signing" a talk page comment is to use four tildes (~~~~). This appends not only your user name, but also the date/time of your comment. You appear to have been using only three tildes, which adds your user name without a date/time stamp. Don't worry about trying to add date/time stamps to your prior comments, but please use four (not three) tildes to sign your comments from now on. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the lede should summarize the prevailing opinion(s); the quote from the 2011 CRS report was included (by an editor who was not me) to be that summary. The proposed edit fails to include a summary.

I agree the summary in the lede need not be the 2011 CRS report. I agree the quote from the 2011 CRS report can be moved to the CRS section, provided a sufficient summary takes its place in the lede.

As for the summary in the lede, as shown by every reliable source cited in this article, contemporary legal scholars agree that "natural-born citizen" (as the term is used in the United States Constitution) includes every person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth" -- either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." The lede need not shy away from plainly stating that. And an inline citation to the 2011 CRS report (or another source) would be helpful, but is not necessary.

I respect the desire to proportionally represent significant minority views. Solum's faint-praise-damning "weren't crazy", however, does not elevate the birther position from beyond the fringe, as no reliable source has actually cited anyone articulating that "not crazy" view -- no "reputable legal scholar[]" "honestly differ[s]".

Chin's view on McCain, although a minority position, is not fringe; his view certainly merits inclusion in the article. Chin's view need not be in the lede, however, as it is ultimately a fact-dependent analysis based on rather rare circumstances. Moreover, Chin believes natural-born citizen means citizen at birth; Chin just does not believe that McCain was a citizen at birth. Chin's view is interesting, but too many trees/not enough forest for the lede. --Weazie (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Suppose the CRS quote in the lead were replaced with something like this: The Congressional Research Service has expressed the view that the term "natural-born citizen" encompasses any person who is entitled under U.S. law to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth". And the 2011 CRS quote would then be moved farther down into the article, in the "Congressional Research Service" section.

Note that I am intentionally omitting wording here which suggests the CRS position is conclusive — such as that the CRS "stated" this, or that the CRS's position is based on "the weight of legal and historical authority".

Weazie, in your opinion, would this constitute a sufficient summary of the CRS's conclusions for inclusion in the lead? Or do you perhaps feel this isn't strong enough, given that no reliable source appears to contradict the CRS's position?

FrankLWorth, in your opinion, would such a summary statement of the CRS's view be acceptable in the lead? Or are you still concerned that this would give too much prominence to the opinion of a body other than the Supreme Court, on an issue which you evidently believe only the Supreme Court can judge?

Additional questions to consider:

For purposes of this discussion, can we identify as many sources as possible which disagree with the "natural-born citizen = citizen at birth" view — and then consider each such source in order to determine whether or not it meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source? I don't want to see unreliable fringe sources included in the article, but I also don't want us to fall into a possible trap of concluding the CRS view is the only reliable view because any source which says differently must obviously not be reliable.

Also, can we identify any reliable sources which discuss the question of whether the interpretation of the natural-born-citizen clause is or is not justiciable? If we end up deciding that the CRS position (or any other opinion by legal scholars) is not appropriate for the lead because only the Supreme Court has the right to give a definitive interpretation of the clause, I would like to see comments from reliable secondary sources which address the question of justiciability as it specifically pertains to the natural-born-citizen clause.

— Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Richwales's comments and suggestions. Kungfuw (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The Congressional Research Service has expressed the view that the term "natural-born citizen" encompasses any person who is entitled under U.S. law to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth". While this is adequate, why ignore the CRS's lead in: "The weight of legal and historical authority...."? As the CRS is a reliable source, there's no reason to shy away from its conclusion that the issue generally settled. And if there's a reliable source that states a minority position, it too can have proportional space in the lede. I think a stronger lede (with an inline citation) would be: Contemporary legal scholars, such as the Congressional Research Service, have generally expressed the view that the term "natural-born citizen" encompasses any person who is entitled under U.S. law to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth". To be followed by a statement of a minority position, provided a reliable source can be found for one.

I suspect the real issue is, not that there's a disagreement among contemporary legal scholars, but rather a "concern" the issue remains "unsettled" by virtue of the U.S. Supreme Court's silence, or the possible contrary historical positions that have been taken. But those "concerns" would require a reliable source; an individual editor's "belief" would be, at best, original research.

Regarding the justiciability issue, Professor Tojaki wrote a law review article about the subject for the 2008 election. His article is already referenced in footnote 65 of this article, as part of the discussion about standing for eligibility challenges. Notably, he says (on page 35), "It is at least open to question whether courts are institutionally competent to address this dispute, which does not clearly involve the protection of individual rights or self-entrenching conduct by elected officials." A fair reading of his article supports the conclusion that the courts may be unable to "settle" the issue. Weazie (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the justiciability issue is the issue most likely to cause a divergence between the opinion of contemporary legal scholars and the actual assumption, or non-assumption, of office by a president-elect. If, for example, it turned out that the Electoral College were the deciding entity, the issue in effect would be decided by popular opinion. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There's still a problem with your position. I cite as Reason Four why the CRS quote is inappropriate: Regardless of how accurate the quote may be, the presence of an extended direct quote in the lead implies that the quotee is the main player, or one of the top major players, in the issue. The CRS is a superb group, but it is not the main player here. I don't think this issue has a "main player" other than the Constitution itself and perhaps the Supreme Court (my opinion). Remember, the CRS has no legal authority and no Constitutional authority. A direct quote is misleading as to the status and authority of the CRS. Kungfuw (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Kungfuw

Because you are new, you may not realize that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources. The CRS report is just that -- and a "superb" one. The concern that the CRS is being overpromoted is reasonable, which is why I suggested including the "such as" clause to indicate that it is one voice among many saying the same thing. The CRS could be not specifically named in the lede, but it is better writing to identify a p:roponent of an opinion. Also, the CRS need not be quoted in the lede; an accurate paraphrase will do. Or, the CRS need not be cited, as another source would do; perhaps you could suggest a different one (within a reliable secondary source, of course).

You may personally believe the issue is unsettled because the U.S. Supreme Court has not expressly spoken on the issue, but reputable legal scholars have opined otherwise. The reader is better informed by knowing at the outset what the "experts" think. There is nothing wrong with the lede summarizing their opinions (provided they are labeled as opinions, so the reader can give their opinions the weight she or he thinks are due), as well as briefly noting significant, non-fringe minority opinions. Weazie (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify. I agree that the broad strokes of the phrase's meaning are agreed upon and resolved. Some scholars, though, have pointed out that some aspects of the phrase's meaning are unsettled. Examples: "Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase..." -- Cornell University Law School, and "...there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country" -- CRS Report, 2011 Kungfuw (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cornell's law school does not say that "some debate exists"; Wex says that. And Wex is, among other issues, a tertiary source; its "scholarship" is no way compares to the CRS'. --Weazie (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

A Closer Look at the CRS Report I have read the CRS report now. The report's first section, entitled "Summary," contains five paragraphs. The quote in the lead of this Wikipedia article is from one of those paragraphs, the fifth. I don't think the fifth paragraph alone is the summary, although it is well-written and succinct. I hesitate to open another Pandora's box, but I have to say that I don't believe including just that one paragraph is completely right.

The CRS report concludes with two paragraphs that also summarize the issues surrounding the phrase. I propose that those concluding paragraphs be quoted in the CRS section of this article. I copy them here:

[begin CRS quote]The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding “natural born” citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.

The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicates that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as native born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.[end CRS quote]

Proposed "Prevailing Viewpoint" Section of the Lead I have borrowed from Richwales and the CRS report for this proposed replacement of the direct CRS quote in the lead:

[begin quote] A common view is that "natural born" comprises all those born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - including, generally, those born on U.S. soil, those born in U.S. territories or possessions, and those born to American parents in foreign countries.[end quote]

Proposed New Lead 1 This is the entire new lead I propose. It incorporates Weazie's clarification of Supreme Court actions.

[begin quote]Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A common view is that "natural born" comprises all those born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - including, generally, those born on U.S. soil, those born in U.S. territories or possessions, and those born to American parents in foreign countries.

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that had addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.[end quote]

Kungfuw (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a huge gap, IMO, between "the weight of legal and historical authority" (from the current lead section text) and "a common view" (your proposed rewrite). I would personally prefer something between these two extremes, but unless at least one reliable source can be found which supports a view other than "natural-born citizen = citizen at birth", I don't think any dilution of "the weight of legal and historical authority" is going to fly. Can you (or anyone else) identify any reliable source (as understood here on Wikipedia) which puts forth a different view? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. (Actually, I got the "common view" phrase from the 2012 discussion on this lead. I would favor "the prevailing view", or even "the consensus of legal scholarship and relevant case law." I will propose some new leads below. Kungfuw (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, anything weaker than the current language violates WP:FRINGE; there are no substantive sources for any other statement outside of partisan politics and extremist outliers. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. For example, although some people think Cruz, Rubio, etc., are not eligible, no reputable scholar has said that. Like I said three years ago, "common view" is insufficient; "prevailing view" (or an analog) is better because it is more accurate. --Weazie (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Weazie and Orangemike, I'm very surprised you would consider my lead fringe. I may be wrong, but I'm getting the impression you're concerned about birtherism and/or Vattel creeping in here. I assure you I'm not a birther, I don't believe in Vattel's influence, and there's nothing fringe in the sentence I proposed. I'm sorry I've come across that way. Kungfuw (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The current lead leaves one with the impression that a challenge to a candidate or president-elect would be settled by the Supreme Court, which would most likely follow the reasoning described in the CRS report. I agree that if the Supreme Court decided the issue, no reliable source has been mentioned that has described any other reasoning they would be likely to follow. But reliable sources have indicated the issue might be non-justiciable, in which case the issue might be decided by a body less prone to follow finely-drawn legal distinctions, such as the electorate, the Electoral College, or the Congress. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, can you please specifically cite one or more reliable sources which (as you suggest) argue that the natural-born-citizen question might be non-justiciable? Are you proposing that one or more of the existing sources in the "Standing in eligibility challenges" subsection (footnotes 63 through 66 in the current text) can/should be given greater prominence in the lead? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest footnote 65 by Daniel Tokaji. The URL in the article is a dead link, but a convenience copy is available at http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=mlr_fi

Jc3s5h (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Jc3s5h's point is a good one, and Tokaji's article fits the bill. My concern is only that it might not be lede-worthy. But if the issue could be stated in a clause (or a short sentence), let's add that. Weazie (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the Tokaji dead link, and I'm reading his article now. More comments after I'm done. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Tokaji believes that interpretation of the natural-born-citizen clause is something the Supreme Court might refuse to consider on the grounds that it's a non-justiciable political question. (He doesn't say SCOTUS would refuse to consider the matter — only that they might.) Although the federal courts have consistently rejected challenges to presidential candidates on NBC grounds by rejecting plaintiffs' standing to bring suit, Tokaji suggests that SCOTUS might (or, again, might not) agree to review a decision on the matter by a state court. He also notes that Congress — not the courts — might end up deciding an NBC controversy by deciding how to count the electoral votes, and that SCOTUS might well decide to declare the matter to be "Congress's unreviewable discretion, and therefore non-justiciable".

So, yes, I do think it's appropriate to incorporate Tokaji's view into the lead. Would someone like to propose specific new wording? Or do some of us still believe it's wrong for the lead text to suggest that any body other than SCOTUS could end up having the final say? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jc3s5h's and Richwales's goals of clarifying the justiciability of the clause's meaning. At risk of opening yet another Pandora's box, I personally would enjoy a section of this or a related article devoted to justiciability.Kungfuw (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Kungfu, I'm more than willing to assume you are acting in good faith; but we are going deeper and deeper into the forbidden territory of Original Research and Synthesis. If you can't find a second reliable source agreeing with Takaji that justiciability is a serious issue, then we should not put it anywhere near the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Charles Gordon's 1968 article ("Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma"; footnote #66 in this article's current text) briefly mentions the possibility that the courts might find the NBC clause to be non-justiciable. Mentioning that the question may be (not necessarily is, just may be) non-justiciable is, in my opinion, perfectly appropriate for the lead section and would not violate WP:NOR. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Orangemike, That's fine and I don't disagree. I have a personal opinion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitutional questions, but I have no clear idea as to whether that should appear in the lead or not, or what it should say. I'm not an expert in that. My interest was in a straightforward lead and a good representation of the CRS 2011 report. On those issues, I think and hope we're approaching some consensus. Regarding justiciability, though, I'll be content with what you, Richwales, Weazie, and Jc3s5h think is the best way to represent that, or not, in the lead. Kungfuw (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed New Lead 2 This lead strengthens the "prevailing view" section (changes are bold). It doesn't include the proposed clarifications of justiciability, because I'm not the best person to make those changes.

[begin quote]Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The prevailing view is that "natural born" comprises all those born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - including, generally, those born on U.S. soil, those born in U.S. territories or possessions, and those born to American parents in foreign countries.

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that had addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.[end quote]Kungfuw (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed New Lead 3 This lead further strengthens the "prevailing view" section (changes are bold). It doesn't include the proposed clarifications of justiciability.

[begin quote]Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of constitutional and legal scholarship and relevant case law is that "natural born" comprises all those born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - including, generally, those born on U.S. soil, those born in U.S. territories or possessions, and those born to American parents in foreign countries.

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that had addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.[end quote]Kungfuw (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer the second option above ("Proposed New Lead 3"). The first option (with "the prevailing view") might suggest to readers that this is the majority consensus amongst the American public — a claim which, in fact, may not be true at all (I personally suspect a very large percentage of Americans believe the president must have been born in the US and assume someone born abroad to American parents is not "natural-born").

As for how to incorporate the justiciability issue, I would suggest appending something like the following to the last paragraph of the lead: Some legal experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts, either because no one is likely to have standing to bring a legal challenge against a candidate for the Presidency, or because presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question to be decided by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government. If necessary, we can include cites to the Tokaji and Gordon articles on presidential eligibility (both of which mention standing as well as justiciability). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at "Proposed New Lead 3", the words "those born in U.S. territories or possessions" might be too general. As I understand it, incorporated U.S. territories confer birthright citizenship, as do unincorporated territories where birthright citizenship is established by law (Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and United States Virgin Islands). American Samoa, however, is a U.S. possession conferring birthright U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship (I think this is true of Swains Island as well). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The second proposed lede ("No. 3") is a good start (and better than the first ("No. 2")), but it shouldn't say "someone born abroad to American parents" because that might suggest a person born abroad needs two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen. Ted Cruz, for example, was born abroad to a single citizen parent, and no reputable scholar thinks he's ineligible. Like the CRS report states, it is agreed the natural-born-citizenship clause includes being born under situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." So the lede should plainly state the consensus that natural-born citizen means citizen at birth. Also: like Wtmitchell says, birth in a U.S. possession alone actually is not sufficient to confer citizenship, so "or possessions" needs to be removed.

As for the proposed language regarding justiciability, I believe it goes too far in the other direction regarding standing. No court has said that no one has standing to challenge a candidate's eligibility -- federal challenges brought by private citizens have been denied due to lack of standing. Also, in many states, private citizens do have standing to challenge presidential candidates; "the courts" is imprecise. So I would suggest omitting the entire "either because ... the Presidency" clause. --Weazie (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Birth is some possessions is sufficient to confer citizenship, but not birth in any possession. It varies on a possession by possession basis. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, of course, people born in the Philippines when it was a US possession, and prior to its gaining independence in 1946, were not recognized as having US citizenship by birth (this is a complex issue, and still controversial in some circles, but the ultimate bottom line was "no US citizenship").

The language in the lead is necessarily general; there is no possible way to include all the complicated rules and exceptions in the lead, much less the various ways they have changed over time. The "Proposed New Lead 3" text does say "generally", and for broad-stroke purposes, I think we really need to say pretty much what is proposed, acknowledge that the brief summary categories are applied "generally", and punt however much detail we feel needs to be explained to the main body of the article — while, at the same time, not going into such intricate detail in the article body that we would end up duplicating the existing article on United States nationality law.

As for standing (or lack thereof), I believe this point does need to be mentioned in some way, given that most of the presidential eligibility challenges in recent years have been dismissed for want of standing. Perhaps, instead of saying that "no one is likely to have standing", we might say that "it is likely to be difficult for plaintiffs to demonstrate that they have standing". — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the lede's language is necessarily general; let the articles on U.S. nationality, birthright citizenship, etc., flesh out the details. To avoid getting lost in the proverbial weeds: The consensus of constitutional and legal scholarship and relevant case law is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."

As for standing, it is difficult to succinctly state a general rule because, frankly, the body of case law is based mostly on the frivolous lawsuits from the past two elections. Under the circumstances, I think the better choice is to make a general observation, e.g., "many previous eligibility lawsuits were dismissed due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing." Weazie (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair point re: standing. How about something like this for the last paragraph of the lead:

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many recent eligibility lawsuits have been dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question which can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.

— Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read and agree with the suggestions made to my proposed leads. The proposed lead below I believe fairly incorporates the general consensus. I was unsure of how to handle the U.S. possessions part, so I just added the word "certain" before it. I'm more than happy to remove any reference to U.S. possessions. I also switched in Richwales's proposed third paragraph. I also made the new changes bold.

Proposed New Lead 4 -- Very similar to Proposed New Lead 3; main change is the new third paragraph.

[begin quote]Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of constitutional and legal scholarship and relevant case law is that "natural born" comprises all those born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - including, generally, those born on U.S. soil, those born in U.S. territories or certain possessions, and those born to American parents in foreign countries.

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many recent eligibility lawsuits have been dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question which can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.[end quote]

My thanks to everyone. Kungfuw (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(inserted comment specific to the proposal immediately above) the word "recent" in the above introduces a WP:DATED problem. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

For the second sentence of the second paragraph, I prefer: The consensus of constitutional and legal scholarship and relevant case law is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." The final part covers the territories and possessions without getting bogged in the weeds. More importantly, it provides the reader with clear guidance about a candidate like Ted Cruz, who obtained citizenship at birth (but was not born in the United States, and does not have two U.S. citizen parents). --Weazie (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Weazie, I disagree on the use of the term "citizen at birth" in the lead and in that I must hold firm. I have worked very hard for consensus so I think at this point I'm not foisting my own personal goals on the lead. There are no reasons to include "citizen at birth," it is not needed at all, and there are several reasons not to include it. Among those reasons are: (1) It's poor form to refer to an incompletely defined term such as "natural-born citizen" by using other potentially ill-defined terms, such as "native" or "native-born" or "citizen at birth." (2) Over the long history of the natural-born citizen discussions a number of terms have received focus, like those above. "Citizen at birth" is just one of them. To promote it to the lead would once again introduce stilted prominence to one thing (formerly, the CRS 2011 report, now, a buzzword) into the lead. That's what I'm trying to get away from! (3) I used the conclusion of the CRS 2011 report as my model, and the CRS conclusion does not use that term. (4) With the controversies over John McCain and Ted Cruz, the term is politically charged and its use would not be in good faith. It's clear to me, Weazie, that you very much want to highlight that term. The lead of an article on the Natural-Born Citizen clause is not the place for you to do that.

For all the above reasons, I request acceptance of my proposed lead. I have worked very hard for consensus while allowing a lead I and others feel is misleading to stand. Take the flag down. Kungfuw (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason to include "citizen at birth" is that it is the consensus of legal scholars that natural-born born citizen means citizen at birth. (Despite repeated requests, you have not provided a specific contrary indicator.) There is no reason to shy away from that consensus, and it helps the reader to be clear. And "citizen at birth" is not a "buzzword" -- it has a very specific legal definition.

There is no reputable legal scholar who believes that Cruz is ineligible; it is not "politically charged" to suggest that he is eligible. As for McCain, there was a legitimate argument to be made regarding his ineligibility, but it is not lede-worthy. Even Professor Chin, the primary author of the belief that McCain was not eligible, believes natural-born citizen means citizen at birth; Chin just does not believe McCain was a citizen at birth. --Weazie (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I AGREE with the proposed new lede, with one amendment: remove the words "Many recent" from thre phrase "Many recent eligibility lawsuits have been dismissed in lower courts".

I DISAGREE with one user's attempt to insert "citizen at birth" as the synonym for "natural born citizen." I AGREE with Kungfuw's reasons for exclusion. The lede makes no other identifications of "natural-born" with any other words or phrases, and that is proper. The consensus of legal scholarship is also that NBC is the same as the Common-Law definition. That is also not appropriate in the lede, no matter how much I agree with it. One does not define one term by another.

The lede should also not be used for the purpose of declaring one or more candidates eligible. I assert that user Weazie is attempting to do so. I strongly request the intervention of moderators.

I believe we have consensus of Richwales, Kungfuw, Jc3s5h, and myself for the new lede. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankLWorth (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not agree with FrankLWorth or Kungfuw here. I would be willing to see "citizen[ship] at birth" used, and I believe "many recent eligibility lawsuits" is acceptable. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Silence does not necessarily indicate agreement, but for clarity: I agree "many" and "recent" are useful modifiers, and ought to be included. Weazie (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Richwales, if you believe the term "citizen at birth" must be in the lede, would you explain why? In what way is the lede incomplete without it? To assert, especially in the lede, that the two terms are synonymous is a stretch. For example, the Wikipedia article on birthright citizenship does not even imply such identity between the two terms. The NBC article is about the whole history of the NBC clause. Can you provide any historical examples of the "citizen at birth" phrase's use? If we must assign a synonym for NBC (and I see no reason we should) in the lede, I propose mention the Common Law definition of NBC as our synonym. It has a much greater and longer history.FrankLWorth (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Richwales, as one more piece of evidence that the lede of this article should not identify "citizen at birth" with "natural-born citizen," consider this quote from the 2009 CRS report: "it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth”. That sentence is laden with disclaimers of certainty, such as the words "it appears," "most," "inferences," "indicate," and "would mean." If the CRS is so concerned about explicitly identifying the two phrases, I suggest Wikipedia exercise the same discretion.FrankLWorth (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I raised the WP:DATED concern re the term "recent", I'll clarify re its ambiguity. It is unclear whether the term indicates recency in relation to the unstated date when it appeared in the article or in relation to the unknown and uncontrollable future date (perhaps years hence) when a reader encounters it in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles were dismissed . . . ." would alleviate that concern. (And we can leave it to future editors update the lede if there are more eligibility challenges.) --Weazie (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Weazie's suggestion to use the phrase "Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles were dismissed . . . ." instead of "Many recent..." in the second paragraph. FrankLWorth (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "common-law definition" will not be understood by most readers, so I would not feel comfortable using it in the lead section (even if it were the best term, which I don't necessarily accept).

It seems to me that you may be objecting on two grounds — first, because you don't see sufficient historical use of the term "citizen at birth" (or "citizen by birth") — and/or second, because you believe "citizen at birth" is too broad and we should refer to a more restrictive "common law" definition — or possibly both. I'll say something about both of these possibilities, just in case. I'll acknowledge the possibility that I'm missing your point entirely; please clarify what you mean in this case.

My understanding of the history of US citizenship discussions and rulings is that "common law" normally refers to the English concept of allegiance by virtue of birth within the king's dominions regardless of the parents' status (i.e., jus soli) — as contrasted with the European concept of citizenship inherited from one's parent or parents regardless of place of birth (jus sanguinis). See, for example, the discussion of the matter in the Wong Kim Ark case (where the jus sanguinis principle is referred to as the "international law", or the "law of nations").

US citizenship law has, basically from the beginning, incorporated both jus soli and jus sanguinis. See, e.g., the Naturalization Act of 1790, in which non-US-born children of US citizens were generally designated as "natural born citizens" (changed without explanation to simply "citizens" in the Naturalization Act of 1795). So if the reason you don't like "citizen at birth" is because you're trying to argue that the lead should not encompass the possibility that a non-US-born child of US citizens might be "natural born", we're definitely going to need to agree to disagree.

I would also cite the Congressional Research Service report, which explicitly and repeatedly uses the phrases "at birth" and "by birth" in its analysis of the history of US citizenship law. The CRS report is, as best we can reasonably tell, a reliable source — and, even more importantly, it is a reliable secondary source which analyzes and discusses primary sources. In Wikipedia, we are supposed to use reliable secondary sources where possible, in order to avoid the risk of original research through our own analysis of primary sources. Based on the CRS report as a reliable secondary source, I would strongly recommend using "citizen at birth", rather than "citizen under the common law".

Finally, I need to mention here that although unanimity is desirable when forming a consensus, this is not an absolute requirement — a broad-based, policy-based consensus may be acceptable and enforceable here, even if not each and every individual editor participating in the discussion agrees with it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me also add that I really don't see any fatal flaw with the wording in the "proposed new leads" given previously, in which we would say that "natural born" comprises "all those born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States", including, generally, various sorts of people, including certain types of people born outside the US proper. But if the consensus is that this wording is simply too inexact and cannot be salvaged, then I'll go with "citizen at birth". — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Concern that "citizen at birth" is only a relatively modern usage could be addressed as such: The consensus of early 21st century constitutional and legal scholarship and relevant case law . . . . (This also avoids WP:DATED issues.) Weazie (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I note the bans of Kungfuw (one month) and FrankLWorth (indefinitely) for sock puppetry. Weazie (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law? Otherwise, some might misunderstand it to mean that only early 21st-century case law is being referred to. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

To put this to bed:

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.

--Weazie (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. This looks OK to me. My only additional thought right now is that we might want/need to include some footnote cites in order to forestall possible challenges to certain claims — such as citing Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers statement about foreign influence, the CRS report regarding contemporary scholarly consensus, and the Tokaji and Gordon articles regarding possible non-justiciability. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes are a good idea, and those are good ones to include. I just wanted to nail the text down first. Weazie (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Cited Reference Doesn't Support Claim that Case Law Allows for "Natural Born" Citizenship to Foreign-born Children of U.S. Citizens

This sentence:

″The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth".″

Uses this source as a reference; however, the source claims the following on page 33:

″As discussed in more detail in the following section of this report, there have been some legitimate legal arguments and varying opinions about the status of foreign born children of U.S. citizens as being either “natural born” citizens under common law principles, or citizens who are “naturalized” by statute. There appears, however, to be no legitimate legal issue outstanding concerning the eligibility of all native born citizens of the United States to be President″

The cited reference goes on to discuss case law but does not ever refer to a general "consensus" as claimed.

Ragnaroqk (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That sentence is in the lede; it summarizes the article. The lede's summary is not limited to what the CRS report says. Weazie (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed reorganizing

This article is read like a collection of arguments back and forth with an excessive number of headings. It does not read like a Wikipedia article. Lots of people making little changes and focusing on small details, I think there is a big need to restructure the article. I tried to reorganize it with little success. In my opinion, there are way too many headings of similar topics, lots of disjointed facts thrown together and lots of trivial details that the average reader would not care about. Let's try to make the article better, rather than add more disjointed quotes in the hopes of convincing someone of something. My suggestions would be to have it set up as follows. Please share your thoughts...

Dig Deeper (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

   Intro

   1 Eligibility challenges
   1.1 Chester A. Arthur
   1.2 Christopher Schürmann
   1.3 Charles Evans Hughes
   1.4 Barry Goldwater
   1.5 George Romney
   1.6 Lowell Weicker
   1.7 John McCain
   1.8 Barack Obama
   1.9 Ted Cruz
   1.10 Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal
   1.11 Arnold Schwarzenegger

   2 History
   2.1 Constitutional provisions
   2.2 Antecedents in England
   2.3 Constitutional Convention
   2.4 Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
   2.5 Proposed constitutional amendments

   3 Proposed rationale and interpretations
   3.1 John Bingham
       3.1.1 Edward Bates
   3.2 Other U.S. government officials
   3.3 Court decisions
   3.4 Treatises and academic publications

   4 Contemporary interpretations
   4.1 Black's Law Dictionary
   4.2 Congressional Research Service
   4.3 Academic opinions
       4.3.1 Relevance of place of birth
       4.3.2 Whether the citizenship status of parents is relevant
       4.3.3 Qualification through satisfaction of either disjunct

   5 See also

   6 Notes

   7 External links

The proposed edit, essentially, elevates the eligibility challenges to the top. I disagree with this approach, as this organization does not educate the reader about the possible bases for the eligibility challenges. The better approach is to educate the reader as to the origins and meaning of the clause, which helps then explain and provide context for the challenges.

Moving proposed amendments to the "History" section is reasonable. But as the clause as never been amended, the failed attempts are not as important as other information in the article. Weazie (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point. How about moving eligibility challenges back to the bottom, but keeping the categories and subcategories as they are presented above?

I will try to add joiner sentences to help things flow a little better.Dig Deeper (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important to feature the History section first in order to introduce the reader to the Constitutional language (not everyone, and especially non-Americans, is familiar with the Constitution) and, second, the evolution of the interpretation of the Clause. The specific cases should follow. American In Brazil (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made the changes, keeping Eligibility challenges near the bottom. I also added some joiner sentences to help it sound more cohesive. It's starting to look more and more like a Wikipedia article. Thanks for your input and your edits. Dig Deeper (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed reorganizing of "Interpretations of the clause" section

There seems to be considerable redundancy in this section. I propose we reorganize it into 3 sections Government Interpretations, Court Interpretations, and Academic Interpretations. I'm not suggesting deleting anything, only moving it to the appropriate section. Please let me know your thoughts. Dig Deeper (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

   CURRENTLY                                                                         NEW
   3 Interpretations of the clause                                                   3 Interpretations of the clause                         
   3.1 U.S. government officials in the Civil War era                                3.1 Government Interpretations                                                         
   3.1.1 John Bingham                                                                3.1.1 U.S. government officials in the Civil War era           
   3.1.2 Edward Bates                                                                3.1.2 Other U.S. government officials           
   3.2 Other U.S. government officials                                               3.2 Court Interpretations                            
   3.3 Treatises and academic publications  (move to Academic Interpretations)       3.3 Academic Interpretations                                
   3.4 Court decisions      (move to Court Interpretations)                                                               
   3.5 Contemporary interpretations  (split up and move to appropriate section)                                                                         
   3.5.1 Black's Law Dictionary    (move to Academic Interpretations)                                                                       
   3.5.2 Congressional Research Service   (move to Government Interpretations)                                                                        
   3.6 Academic opinions  (move to Academic Interpretations)                                                                         
   3.6.1 Relevance of place of birth   (move to Academic Interpretations)                                                                        
   3.6.2 Whether the citizenship status of parents is relevant  (move to Academic Interpretations)                                                                         
   3.6.3 Qualification through satisfaction of either disjunct  (move to Academic Interpretations)

I think that's fine. IIRC, a different editor thought it was important to (roughly) divide the historical interpretations to post-ratification, post-Civil War (i.e., 14th Amendment), and post-Wong Kim Ark. The "contemporary section" is intended to be a signpost for those who don't want to wade thought the history, and just want to see what contemporary experts say. Weazie (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The material will be listed chronologically, but perhaps we can also put a contemporary sub-section (and perhaps other chrono indicators) under each of the 3 sections, to make it easier to find modern opinions.Dig Deeper (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

All done. Looks much better. Thanks!

I sincerely appreciate the latitude given to do some macro edits to this article. It's very satisfying to improve an article in this way. Hopefully it's more or less satisfactory to you and others. Thanks! Dig Deeper (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

DD - Thanks for your useful edits and helpful comments. I think the article is much improved. This is an important topic for Americans in this election cycle (and some previous ones). I would like to make this into a good and perhaps even a featured article. Let's all work toward that end. Also, please see my comments above under "Lead". American In Brazil (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

What do suits about the validity of a birth certificate have to do with the natural born citizen clause?

The article cites suits about the validity of Obama's birth certificate. What does validity of a birth certificate have to do with the natural-born-citizen clause? The entire section appears to violate WP:OR. MBUSHIstory (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ankeny, for example, is not about Obama's birth certicate; its holding, in part, is about the meaning of natural-born citizen. If there is a citation (or section) that violates WP:OR, please be specific. --Weazie (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sourced content deleted and replaced with original research

This sentence was removed from the lead in this version[1] -

"According to a suit filed during the 2016 presidential campaign, “This 229-year question (about the definition of 'natural born citizen') has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court... Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”[5]"

The article body content that supports this lead content was also deleted. I cannot find an explanation for the deletion in the talk page or in the edit summaries.

The article body content was replaced with[2] -

"In November 2015, two ballot challenges were filed in New Hampshire, alleging Cruz was ineligible because he was born in Canada.[156] The ballot commission rejected the challenges.[157] In December, similar lawsuits were filed in Vermont and Florida.[158][159] In January 2016, a similar lawsuit was filed in Texas,[160] and a similar ballot challenge was filed in Illinois.[161]"

Regarding "a similar lawsuit was filed in Texas,[160]", the source [160] was "Cruz’s ‘Natural-Born Citizen’ Status Tested in Birther Suit, Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Kevin Cirilli, Bloomberg Business, 1-14-2016". That source does not in any way say that the Texas suit is similar to any of the other suits. The new content is original research and violates WP:OR. MBUSHIstory (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As per the edit summary, the matter was removed from the lede because the Texas suit was already listed among the suits (and challenges) filed against Cruz. This particular suit is not lede-worthy, and it was already listed in the Cruz section before it was elevated to the lede.

The news article quotes Schwartz's suit for the proposition that it is the first case; Schwartz is wrong, as hundreds of suits were filed against Obama, and Cruz had already been challenged in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Florida. If the news article itself had said Schwartz's suit was the first, then there might be WP:OR issues, but the news article is merely quoting Schwartz. Schwartz is a primary source as to his beliefs on the status of his own case. Weazie (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Schwartz's suit is critiqued here. --Weazie (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• What is your source for the assertion the Texas suit is "similar" to other suits? The cited source does not say anything like this.
• What is your source for your assertion that "Schwartz is wrong, as "hundreds of suits" about Obama were heard by the Supreme Court and a decision was made as to the definition of natural-born-citizen?
• Why do you cite "abovethelaw.com" (a blog) as being WP:RS? MBUSHIstory (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the talk page do not need a reliable source. I don't need a reliable source to read Schwartz's suit and conclude that it is similar to other, previously filed challenges, and that his suit will eventually be dismissed due to lack of standing, as the "Above the Law" article (and others) also predict. This article, however, doesn't make any predictions about the outcome.

The issue is whether Schwartz's belief in the uniqueness of his suit merits mentioning (and merits elevating it to the lede), and Schwartz is a primary source as to his opinion about his own lawsuit. Schwartz can believe he was first to the courthouse, but wikipedia need not take his word for it, especially when reliable sources show that he was not. Schwartz's lawsuit currently gets its due weight by being mentioned in the Cruz section, along with all the other challenges that have been filed against Cruz.

In addition, the lede already expressly states that the U.S. Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on a candidate's natural-born citizenship; there's no need to say that twice. Weazie (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The lead presently says that natural born "comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship 'at birth'".

First of all, what source says that a US citizen in a foreign country is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US? Second, what source says that a person born overseas to a US citizen is likewise a citizen, regardless of how many years the parent has spent in the US? Third, I agree sources say many people born in the US, or born overseas to US parents, are natural born US citizens, but what source says there are "other situations" than those two. For these three reasons, the statement in the lead seems riddled with errors. I tried to fix it but was reverted, and I don't agree that the version before the revert said there is any consensus about whether or not children of undocumented immigrants are natural born citizens.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The lede is a rough paraphase of the 2011 CRS article's introduction: "In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens 'at birth' or 'by birth,' and are “natural born,' as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President." The CRS is a reliable source.

The archives show that the lede has been the topic of extensive discussion. Per WP:BRD, the best course of action is to propose on this talk page specific improvements for the lede. --Weazie (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The specific improvement that I am proposing is the version that was reverted, for the reasons explained above:

“ The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born citizens" include those born in the United States (at least if the parents are in the U.S. legally and are not foreign diplomats or enemy soldiers), plus those born elsewhere if they have a U.S. parent and meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". ”

....instead of....

“ The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". ”

The CRS does not say:

• that a US citizen in a foreign country is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US;
• that a person born overseas to a US citizen is likewise a citizen, regardless of how many years the parent has spent in the US; or
• that there are "other situations" than born-in-US and born-abroad-with-US-parent, where someone is a natural born citizen.

Additionally, the language I have proposed does not say that there is any consensus about whether or not children of undocumented immigrants are natural born citizens. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The CRS also says, "The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth,' either by being born 'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship 'at birth.'" (This sentence, in fact, had been quoted in the lede, but was ultimately removed after much discussion.)

I think the second sentence of the paragraph at issue could be modified to state:

“ The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born citizens" include, generally, those born in the United States and those born elsewhere if they meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". ”

This change addresses the accuracy concerns. It does omit certain, minor qualifiers (i.e., parents being not foreign diplomats or enemy soldiers, specifying having at least one U.S. citizen parent is a condition precedent to being a U.S. citizen at birth). But this is the lede, and per WP:LEDE, is intended to be only a summary; the details and exceptions are discussed in the body of the article.

The CRS says there is "no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President," and no court (or expert) has taken the position that, for those born in the United States, the parents must be in the United States legally. So the lede need not highlight a potential conflict if no reliable source has actually taken the contrary position. --Weazie (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this:

“ The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born citizens" include, generally (subject to exceptions), those born in the United States and those born elsewhere if they meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". ”

I think the parenthetical is important.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The parenthetical is implied, but the sentence is acceptable either way. I'll make the change. --Weazie (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I had added the following to the lead:

However, there is a minority opinion that those citizens born outside the United States are not "natural born citizens" for the purpose of eligibility to the office of President.<citation>

But it was reverted twice by Weazie because "it is already twice in the article." That is exactly the point. The lead should summarize the article, featuring important aspects and mentioning significant controversies WP:LEAD. Further, to mention the majority opinion in the lead, but omitting a minority opinion by a Constitutional scholar, violates the neutral encyclopedic voice of Wikipedia WP:NPOV. I will add back the sentence in a week if there is no further objection, which should be enough time for more discussion. American In Brazil (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEDE requires giving due weight to minority opinions; giving undue weight to a minority opinion in the lede also violates WP:NPOV. A single scholar's opinion needs to be appropriately acknowledged in the lede, which means not simply treating it as an equal to the opinion of the many scholars who disagree with that one scholar. The current version of the lede acknowledges no consensus exists as to those born outside of the United States; the minority opinion is not omitted, and is, in fact, discussed (twice) -- in the body of the article. If there is a better method to give the minority opinion its due weight in the lede, please first propose some language here on the talk page. Weazie (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a minority opinion should be clearly labeled as such in order to not give it the same weight as the majority. But it should not be ignored. Being in the minority doesn't mean you're wrong - it just means you're in the minority. American jurisprudence is replete with minority opinions that eventually became the majority. Think of Justice Harlan's lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which became the unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). For purposes of this WP article, we can downgrade the weight of the sentence by changing 'a' to 'one' so it reads:

However, there is one minority opinion that those citizens born outside the United States are not "natural born citizens" for the purpose of eligibility to the office of President.<citation>

I believe this will acknowledge the minority position while at the same time not lending it undue weight. If additional minority opinions emerge later they can be added as well. American In Brazil (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It undisputed that there's currently a singular minority opinion regarding the blanket ineligibility of those born outside the United States. The lede as currently written conveys the existence of that opinion (without placing undue emphasis on it) -- the minority opinion is not being ignored, either in the lede or in the body of the article. Adding an entire sentence to the lede does not seem to be appropriate weight for a singular opinion. Professor Chin, for example, has a minority opinion, but the discussion of his opinion is in the article -- and not the lede. --Weazie (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For topics in law, one should give more weight to opinions of official government publications and court decisions and peer reviewed academic journals and much less weight to the popular press and non peer reviewed works (books). If the only "minority opinions" come from lawyers in the popular press, I would say it is not worth mentioning in the intro. The article on global warming (a featured article) is perhaps a good comparison. Note that there is a section "Discussion by the public and in popular media", but this is not mentioned in the intro of the global warming article. The peer-reviewed science dominates the intro to the exclusion of the minority opinion of the popular press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dig deeper (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No doubt there is, at present, one minority opinion that "natural born" equates to "native born". However, it was in a peer reviewed law journal, Catholic University Law Review (fn. 69, and I have added fn. 144 to cite the law review article). The article on the op-ed page of the Washington Post (fn. 70 and 145) was a layman's summary of the law review article. Both references are now cited for this opinion under the sections "Place of Birth" and "Ted Cruz". The sentence I have proposed for the lead (see my previous comment above) clearly states that there is one minority opinion. Since a lawsuit has now been filed in Texas to issue a declaratory judgement based upon this legal theory, I believe it merits inclusion in the lead, at least until a court issues an opinion. Admittedly, the plaintiff may have trouble showing standing (in what way has he been injured?). Thoughts, people? American In Brazil (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuits get filed all the time (and more will be filed against Cruz), but the one in Texas will eventually be dismissed due to a lack of standing (the same thing happened in most of the Obama lawsuits). So this Texas suit does not change anything. Again, the existence of the minority opinion is not being ignored -- either in the lede or the article; the issue is giving a singular minority opinion the weight it is due in the lede. If the article was about ice cream and the lede (accurately) read, "Almost everyone prefers vanilla," it implies the existence of different preferences. But if the lede read, "Almost everyone prefers vanilla, a few prefer chocolate, one person prefers strawberry, and no one prefers pistachio," the strength of the lede is swallowed by unnecessarily promoting the less popular opinions. Weazie (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant added some language (and a citation) to the lede. I tried to make it more clear, but I think it adequately summarizes the opinions that are more fully discussed in the body of the article. Weazie (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

McManamon's article in the Catholic University Law Review is an erudite (231 footnotes!) paper on the theory of jus soli (native born citizenship) being a requirement for U.S. President. But more importantly, as you have correctly pointed out, it is the only legal dissertation which comes to this conclusion. When the lead states that a "concensus" of legal scholars has a different point of view, should we as editors not also mention that there is a minority opinion, qualifying that opinion by the word "however" and clearly stating that it is the viewpoint of one scholar. It seems to me this places McManamon's analysis into its proper status as a lesser point of view, though not necessarily an incorrect one. American In Brazil (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant's edit to the lede ("For those born elsewhere, there is an emerging consensus that they are also natural born citizens provided they meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship 'at the moment of birth', but the matter remains unsettled.") adequately mentions there is a minority opinion, and properly qualifies the nature of the consensus. For the purposes of the lede, this is sufficient. That she has a singular opinion is even more of reason that it need not be more specified in the lede.

At any rate, there's no consensus to expressly adding McManamon's opinion to the lede. ("In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.") --Weazie (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

While I don't agree that McManamon's article should not be mentioned in the lead, I do agree there is no clear concensus that it should be included. Let's leave things as they are for the moment. If the Texas court takes up the current lawsuit (and I have my doubts about the plaintiff's standing) and then rules that Cruz is not a "natural born" citizen, then McManamon's opinion will be raised to a much higher level (the court having agreed with the theory of jus soli) and it should be properly mentioned in the lead. This is going to be interesting! American In Brazil (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This issue is in flux, and is evolving. If more minority opinions surface (and are reliably sourced), then the lede at that point should be modified to reflect that change. And a successful court challenge would definitely alter the balance. But we can't edit in anticipation of what might happen, and I have grave doubts about any of the current challenges to Cruz (and Rubio) surviving motions to dismiss. --Weazie (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is now a second legal scholar who agrees with McManamon (fn. 75). Let´s see how this develops. American In Brazil (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Weazie - I have added a third legal scholar's opinion that "natural born" means "native born" (fn. 76). I agree that no suit by a voter can succeed a motion to dismiss (fn. 85). I suspect that a suit by a current Republican candidate may have a colorable claim to standing. If Cruz is the Republican nominee, a suit by the Democratic candidate would stand an even stronger chance for a judicial determination. This is going to be interesting. Keep up the good work on WP. American In Brazil (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to Prag's challenge in New Hampshire? I predict she will fail, for a variety of reasons. But if it gets covered in reliable source, it can be included. --Weazie (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the Schwartz case in Texas. I do not think that any voter plaintiff can survive a motion to dismiss (fn. 85); the damage is not proximate enough. But a current Republican candidate may make a colorable claim to standing. If not, and Cruz is the Republican nominee, then the Democratic nominee surely would have a strong case to pursue. The courts are not debating forums and only can take concrete controversies. Of course, if Cruz is not the Republican nominee then the issue becomes moot and the can is kicked down the road until there is another Presidential candidate with an American citizen parent but who was born outside the U.S. American In Brazil (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Antecedents in England section.

I appreciate the effort that went into drafting this new section. I am concerned, however, that it may run into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues. Is there there a WP:RS that could be cited to tie it all together? --Weazie (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm on an iPhone right now, but tonight I should be at a bigger computer, and will then add some footnotes to further reliable sources that tie this material more closely together.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully it's better now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Should the references to England in fact be references to the United Kingdom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.66.172.10 (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The term "United Kingdom" is only found in informal use during the 18th century, so I think the header is okay as-is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Barack Obama court cases

The article said

In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii, but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural-born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act 1948.

I have rearranged the content of the paragraph where that appeared, and have replaced this snippet requoted here with the following:

The Supreme Court declined without comment to hear two lawsuits in which the plaintiffs argued it was irrelevant whether Obama was born in Hawaii.

That change removed the assertion that the argument in these cases involved the British Nationality Act 1948 and the supporting cite for that assertion. I don't know what was argued in those cases, but the source cited in support of the assertion that those arguments involved the British Nationality act makes no mention of these cases. That source quotes an excerpt from this FactCheck.org article. That article likewise makes no mention of these cases. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Is There any Proof of Who Obama's Father Is?

I have added the word "possibly" in front of the statement about who Obama's father is, since it appears to me that there is absolutely no proof of who his father is -- no DNA test. Along with the "possibly" addition, I have added a citation to what appears to me to be a reasonable theory that an American man is his father, not Obama of Kenya at all. The citation is sufficient for the addition of "possibly." IMHO, there is no reliable source for establishing who the true biological father is, since there is no DNA test, and the physical resemblance or lack of it between competing fathers is obvious. Just look at pictures of Frank Marshall Davis, Obama of Kenya, & Pres Obama. The hypothesis that Obama's father is Frank Marshall Davis is reasonable -- a possibility. The citation is reliable for that purpose. -- Of course nothing put forward by the supporters of Obama is a reliable source on such a topic. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC))

Someone reverted the "possibly" addition, for which I see no justification; and no discussion was added to my comment on the talk page about this. Should the whole comment about Obama's parentage should be deleted from this article as having no relevance with Obama born in the USA?

It's about as likely that Trump's hairpiece is really an alien who's mentally controlling everything he does. Prove that's not true.

Wikipedia, however, goes by what reliable sources say, based on the weight of what those sources say. Trying to add some birtherism garbage won't happen here, which is why your change was and will continue to be reverted. Outside of a handful of nut-job websites, reliable sources overwhelming reject birtherism logic. Ravensfire (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

EnochBethany - There is a distinct possibility that Frank Marshall Davis is your father - unless you have DNA evidence to the contrary. (It is well-known that he donated to sperm banks across the country.) WP is an encyclopedia, not a crankster forum. All information must be cited to reliable sources. Do you have any? -American In Brazil (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ravensfire - I have it on very good authority (which federal regulations forbid me from disclosing) that Donald Trump's hairpiece really is an alien. Which section would you like me to add that to? -American In Brazil (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Paranoia

Jay's letter to Washington shows the still present suspicions in the Colonies. There was no shortage of closet British loyalists, and presumably most were immigrants. The "natural born" clause was intended to be a safeguard against one of them becoming President, and indulging in subterfuge. (The office holds a level power equal to the French President, being stuck with them for five years.) Established democracies then did not require their leaders nor monarchs to be natural born. It was a clause in their laws simply to define citizenship.220.244.84.193 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is a proposal that something to this effect be added to the article, a verifiable reliable supporting source would need to be cited. If this is being offered without support as editorial opinion or as the product of original research, it should not go into the article without such support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In 1787, when Jay wrote his letter to Washington, France did not have a president - it had a king. For WP purposes, all information must be referenced to reliable sources WP:RS. Otherwise it is strictly opinion, which is not encyclopedic WP:OR. -American In Brazil (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

James Buchanan

I reverted edits regarding James Buchanan because I could not quickly verify that his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of Buchanan's birth (in 1791). Any sources (confirming or denying) his parents' citizenship would be appreciated. Thanks! --Weazie (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The US Congress biographical directory affirms he was born in Pennsylvania. Our article about him says his parents were immigrants. The 14th Amendment hadn't been passed, so it wasn't 100% obvious if being born in the US was enough, by itself, to make one a natural-born citizen. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• "BUCHANAN, James - Biographical Information". Biographical Directory of the Unitd States Congress. Retrieved 2016-02-21.

Yes, our article states that his parents immigrated in 1783, around 8 years before his 1791 birth. But the article is silent as to whether they naturalized during those 8 years. --Weazie (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Despite the 14th Amendment being decades in the future when Buchanan was born in 1791, McManamon's law review article (fn. 78) makes clear that the doctrine of jus soli (birth in the country) was accepted from the beginning of the Republic as proof of citizenship. She equates 'native born' with 'natural born'. Of course, that is the crux of the current argument regarding the candidacy of Ted Cruz. The 14th Amendment says nothing about a "natural born" citizen. American In Brazil (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sentence Clarification Needed

Article presently states, "For example, foreign-born children of persons who became naturalized citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were considered aliens." It is uncertain what that sentence means. Does it mean: Children who were foreign-born to foreigners who later became naturalized citizens . . . .? Or does it mean that Foreign born children who were born to naturalized citizens after they became citizens . . . ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochBethany (talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Illegal Aliens

It is clear that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen. The Ark case in the 1890's made it clear that the citizenship of the parents is not relevant, only the place of birth. But the parents in Ark were here legally. The courts have never given a ruling on the status of the children of illegal aliens. The legal consensus seems to be that they are, but it does not seem to have been settled; some offer the argument that illegals are equivalent to 'invaders', whose children are barred from citizenship. I think some more clarity is needed in the article, maybe an expanded discussion of the 'invaders' argument, and why many legal scholars think it does not apply here? 73.70.250.164 (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As McManamon's law review article (fn. 78) recognizes, not all persons born in the United States are citizens. The 14th Amendment requires that they must be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thus children born to foreign ambassadors or to hostile soldiers on U.S. territory, both of whom owe allegiance to a different sovereign, are excluded from citizenship. This is clearly stated in section 4.4.3.1 of the article. As you correctly point out, the parents in "Ark" were legal residents. Therefore, the children of other aliens who are legally in the U.S. (legal residents, students, tourists, business people, conference attendees, etc.) would also be "natural born" citizens (including Marc Rubio, whose parents were legal residents at the time he was born). There has never been a judicial determination as to the status of children born of illegal aliens that I am aware of and perhaps a sentence to that effect would be in order. Thoughts, people? American In Brazil (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Has a reliable source said (or even questioned) that those born in the United States to undocumented parents are not natural-born citizens? If not, then the assertion can't be added to this article, as it would violate WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. --Weazie (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I will research it, but without a reliable source I am not suggesting a statement that questions the "natural born" citizenship status of children of undocumented parents, only a statement that there has never been a judicial determination regarding their status. Also, I have never seen a law review article arguing that illegal immigrants are equivalent to "hostile invaders" although it may have been pleaded in some of the many cases filed. Hostile soldiers on American soil are of course in the service of a foreign government to which they owe allegiance, whereas undocumented aliens are not. The only hostile invasion of the United States occurred during the War of 1812 when British forces captured Washington and burned down the White House. American In Brazil (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the article various absence of determinations, statements, or arguments is getting pretty deep into WP:OR. Better practice is to find reliable sources, and cite them for what they do say. --Weazie (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Marc Rubio (ironically) has suggested during the campaign that U.S. born children of undocumented aliens may not be citizens. Although this can be documented, I do not think it carries much weight inasmuch as it is a partisan political statement. American In Brazil (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We could (assumably) find a reliable source for Rubio's statement, but its inclusion would like violate WP:WEIGHT, for the reason you stated. Weazie (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there has been legitimate discussion about the eligibility of Rubio and Jindal, even tho they were born in the USA. There has even been a lawsuit. [3] Roger (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuits and ballot challenges against Rubio and Jindal are already chronicled in this article (including the Florida lawsuit against Rubio described in that TPM article). There's no indication that either Rubio's or Jindal's parents were not legally in the United States at the times of their respective births, so they are a different situation than suggested by the IP OP. --Weazie (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I would add that the doctrine of jus sanguinis (citizenship by parentage) and not by place of birth (jus soli)) is not and has never been the law of the United States for those born on American soil. A foreign-born child of an American citizen who meets the residency requirements of the law (such as Ted Cruz) is also a citizen by statute. Whether or not such a citizen is "natural born" for the purpose of eligibility to the Presidency is the crux of the current debate. Further, think of the mischief this doctrine would cause - if my grandparents had not been in the U.S. legally then my parents were not citizens, which means that I am not a citizen (I'll have to change my moniker to "Stateless In Brazil"), nor are my children citizens. Tens of millions of Americans, many in positions of responsibility in government, business, labor, technology, education, other professions, etc., could be subject to deportation. It is a very good prescription for destroying America. American In Brazil (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the citizenship status of U.S. born children of illegal aliens in Wong Kim Ark, (section 3.5), and in Birthright citizenship in the United States (current controversy, section 5). The "Natural Born Citizen Clause" article (this article) is limited to those seeking the office of President. American In Brazil (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

New source needed for opening paragraph

The source previously cited, The Federalist Papers: No. 68 (), is a defense of the Electoral College as a method for selecting the President, not a defense of the "natural born citizen" clause. A new source is needed for the first paragraph assertion that "This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence." WCCasey (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. --Weazie (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Weazie. I'm not sure this is a good reference. First, it was published in 1803. The sentence refers to the intent of the Framers in 1787. Second, it is in Blackstone's commentaries on English law (though this article references the Presidency). I believe the Federalist Papers had additional commentary on the Framers' concern about foreign influence in the Chief Executive. I will look and request that you do as well. Perhaps we can find a more appropriate commentary. American In Brazil (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)