Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"

This thread is mainly in response to this one which contains copious amounts of misinformation about the definition of "natural born citizen." There seems to be this notion that to be eligible for office, one's parents must be citizens of the United States. This is simply not true. So, the main objective of this thread is to clarify the definition of "natural born citizen" and hopefully put to rest this aspect of the "Obamas not eligible to be President" argument.

*I am not here to argue the validity of his birth certificate. For the purpose of this thread, the assumption is that it is real.*

Article II, Section I of the Constitution outlines the requirements to be President of the United States:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So, the requirements are:
-A natural born citizen
-A citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
-Must be 35 years old
-Must have lived in the United States for 14 years

What gaps left by the Constitution are filled by Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code. A nice summary (emphasis mine):

Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

-Anyone born inside the United States *
-Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
-Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
-Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
-Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
-A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Simply put: Obama IS eligible to be president.

He was born in the United States, therefore he is a natural born citizen. The fact that his father did not have U.S. citizenship at the time of his birth does not matter. One could be born and raised in Iran and still be eligible for the presidency provided they have lived in the U.S. for 14 years and their parents are U.S. citizens.

How dare you come on here with facts and the like!!! He's a Mooslem and everyone knows it!/SNARK

reply to post by DarkKnight76


Hahaha well played. I was amazed at the amount of stars some posts were getting when they contained blatant misinformation. I realize it's very wishful thinking on my part but hopefully they will read this thread and realize that the requirements to be eligible for office arn't as strict as they believe.

Originally posted by de Thor
]One could be born and raised in Iran and still be eligible for the presidency provided they have lived in the U.S. for 14 years and their parents are U.S. citizens.

Both parents have to be citizens do they not?

Originally posted by NoClue206

Originally posted by de Thor
]One could be born and raised in Iran and still be eligible for the presidency provided they have lived in the U.S. for 14 years and their parents are U.S. citizens.

Both parents have to be citizens do they not?

Correct. And at least one must have lived within the U.S. For how long, it doesn't say.

Never mind my last post, this whole "who's a citizen" thing is getting old.

Personally speaking, I think that the whole ''birther'' argument is ridiculous and nonsensical.

Barack Obama's father lived in the US, and met his mother in the US, so quite why his mum would have given birth in Kenya is something which has never even been remotely addressed by the ''birthers''.

But, all that being said, I think this ''Natural Born Citizen'' nonsense is just another example of the traditionalist and regressive thinking which blights American life.

Common sense says that if someone is a US citizen, and of legal voting age, then they should be eligible to run for the title of POTUS, thus logically invalidating any questions regarding Obama's legitimacy to hold this position.

Just because a motley collection of slave-owners, rapists and drunkards wrote something on a parchment 230 years ago, doesn't mean that you should unquestioningly and slavishly accept it as the truth in the 21st century. you know.

Originally posted by NoClue206
Never mind my last post, this whole "who's a citizen" thing is getting old.

Couldn't agree more.

you brought facts to a gun fight... how dare you...

What inevitably comes up in birther discussions is Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise "The Law of Nations" which says that the natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. If that were the case, "anchor babies" would not be an issue. They are an issue, though, because of the fact that being born within the US makes them US citizens.

What people don't seem to realize is that we are not governed by "Law of Nations", but by the Constitution. So, to determine whether a person is a natural-born citizen, we must consult the Constitution and any relevant sections of the US Code, as the OP has done.

Unfortunately, even when presented with irrefutable evidence, people will refuse to budge.

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
Unfortunately, even when presented with irrefutable evidence, people will refuse to budge.

edit on 27-1-2012 by N3k9Ni because: edited for clarity

Very unfortunate indeed. What most birthers don't realize is that they damage the credibility of their argument severely when they try to argue on facts such as the definition of a natural born citizen and don't accept the truth.

Originally posted by de Thor
What most birthers don't realize is that they damage the credibility of their argument severely when they try to argue on facts such as the definition of a natural born citizen and don't accept the truth.

And most birthers are not interested in the truth, shown by their refusal to accept reality that Obama is the legal POTUS

I'm a US citizen married to a UK citizen, living in the UK.
When my son was born in the UK, I filled out the paperwork at the US Embassy for a birth certificate certifying him as a natural born US citizen.
In fact, the embassy handed me the official birth certificate, looked at my 4 month old, and said "You too can be President of the USA when you grow up."
I ran thinking "oh no he's not!"

So unless things have changed, was Obama's mom not an American citizen?

You missed a spot.

Father was never a US national.

What the section refers to is far different, in that it grants rights to illegal parents who birth children here.

Barack's daughters are natural born citizens,

Originally posted by Shadowalker
You missed a spot.

Father was never a US national.

Oh please, please, please, PLEASE be sarcasm..

Originally posted by Shadowalker
You missed a spot.

Father was never a US national.

What the section refers to is far different, in that it grants rights to illegal parents who birth children here.

Barack's daughters are natural born citizens,

edit on 27-1-2012 by Shadowalker because: (no reason given)

... mind elaborating? If you could link to the section of U.S. Code that says to be a natural born citizen your parents must be citizens that would be great.

Yeah but.... Alex Jones says its fake.... and and and at the press conference he did not have the birth certificate in his pocket, don't you find that suspicious? [/gullible]

I never got the whole "not a citizen" argument, the entire thing comes from a lack of knowledge of the constitution and/or too lazy to look up the facts.

Thank you for offering a clarifiction on this subject. I am Mr. Confusion and need all the help I can get. Unfortunately, it appears that the clarification offered does not do the job.

Normally, I write fairly extensively in a manner that bores everyone. Let me try for "bullet points"

There is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen.

The Supreme Court has said there is a difference between a natural born citizen and some one born in the US.

The President's legal team didn't bother to make the argument you're suggesting. Afraid it would lose?

The exception you give about a diplomat not being subject to US jurisdiction, might also apply to Obama's dad.

A Supreme Court holding overrules anything in the USC.

Your Iran example is wrong. The 14 year requirement is in addition to the other requirements, not instead of.

Simply put, there is a question about whether Obama is eligible for the ballot, GA is the first state to look at it.

Was that better than my long winded dissertations?

Originally posted by charles1952
Thank you for offering a clarifiction on this subject. I am Mr. Confusion and need all the help I can get. Unfortunately, it appears that the clarification offered does not do the job.

Normally, I write fairly extensively in a manner that bores everyone. Let me try for "bullet points"

There is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen.

The Supreme Court has said there is a difference between a natural born citizen and some one born in the US.

The President's legal team didn't bother to make the argument you're suggesting. Afraid it would lose?

The exception you give about a diplomat not being subject to US jurisdiction, might also apply to Obama's dad.

A Supreme Court holding overrules anything in the USC.

Your Iran example is wrong. The 14 year requirement is in addition to the other requirements, not instead of.

Simply put, there is a question about whether Obama is eligible for the ballot, GA is the first state to look at it.

Was that better than my long winded dissertations?

I love the folks that Try to "clear things up" with snippets of their own opinions and part and piece of the whole that matches what their idea of the truth is.

Your dead on the money charles. The prez is a citizen. I believe the bubble broke under a coconut tree, but it only makes him a citizen. Both of his daughters are natural born citizens as well as the dog.

The wife is a little ugly but she is too.

reply to post by charles1952

You've only confirmed my fears that some people just won't listen.

The Supreme Court has said there is a difference between a natural born citizen and some one born in the US.

Link to the case?

The President's legal team didn't bother to make the argument you're suggesting. Afraid it would lose?

Perhaps they assumed it was so blatantly obvious he was a citizen they didn't want to waste months on a pointless court case.

The exception you give about a diplomat not being subject to US jurisdiction, might also apply to Obama's dad.

Why would that exception ever apply to Obama's dad?

Your Iran example is wrong. The 14 year requirement is in addition to the other requirements, not instead of.

Requirements to become president:
-A natural born citizen OR a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (Check)
-Must be 35 years old (Check)
-Must have lived in the United States for 14 years (Check)

My example using Iran is correct.