Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

General comments about "natural born citizen"

Unsourced personal opinions are not appropriate on an article's talk page. A talk page is not a forum for comments or opinions. Unless you can cite reliable sources which provide a way for this material to be incorporated into the article in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's core content policies — including the Neutral Point of View and No Original Research policies — your comments do not belong in the article or its talk page. Continued refusal to accept and work within this requirement may result in your being blocked from editing. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement was specially specified by the founding fathers for the office of the President. 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Ric At the time when the Founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution, it is not clear that anyone born in the U.S. became automatically a natural born citizen. Slaves born in the U.S. were definitely not automatically granted citizenship. Native Americans (ie. Indians) were not automatically granted U.S. citizenship (to my knowledge.) Children born in Southern U.S. at that time of plantation owners, and their slaves were definitely not automatically granted citizenship. Thus, being born on U.S. soil with only one parent being a U.S. citizen was not sufficient to automatically grant citizenship upon a child born in such situations at the time the U.S. Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers. One of the most famous Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, illustrated the point. If the children of slaves and plantation owners were automatically granted natural-born citizenship, because one of the parents were U.S. citizens, then other slaves could had married such children to create more children with citizenship by using the single-parent-with-citizenship interpretation, so that four scores and seven years later many slaves would be freed by getting automatic natural-born citizenship, and the American Civil War might had been avoided. The Civil War occurred in some part due to the strict application by the Founding Fathers requiring both parents to be U.S. citizens in order for the children to get automatic granting of U.S. Citizenship up to the Civil War. Since the 14th Amendment does not use the words "natural born citizen," it should not be used to change the meaning of "natural born citizen" as used by the Founding Fathers. A new Amendment should be enacted to change the meaning of "natural born citizen" to the current lax interpretation by the modern legal experts. Modern legal experts in the universities tend to take a lax interpretation of the term "natural born citizen" as they feel the Founding Fathers of being too xenophobic. The Founding Fathers had exceptional insight to human nature, being the Founding Fathers recreated the first Democracy after ancient Athens democracy felled. History demonstrated the exceptional insight of the Founding Fathers later showing Germany without a strict natural-born requirement for the top leadership position, allowed Hitler to gain control of the top leader position to start WW2, which cause the development of nuclear weapons. 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC) The talk page is not a forum to discuss the topic of the article; it is a forum to discuss how to improve the article, within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. --Weazie (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Ric Above is not a disscussion of the topic, but to present facts to question the accuracy of the following statement below of "It is clear that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen" justified by the "Ark" case, which is just a determination of a lower court, and which lower court cannot define the words "natural born citizen" in any way not intended by the Founding Fathers. It is even not clear that the Supreme Court can unilaterally define "natural born citizen" that ignores what the Founding Fathers intended the words to mean in the original Constitution. Since there are no written document(s) from the Founding Fathers discovered so far explaining these words, the Supreme Court now cannot fathom the meaning of these words as held by the Founding Fathers with any degree of accuracy. Thus, it will require Congress to issue an Amendment to make clear the exact meaning of these words to be used today, or to delete the "nature born" requirement all together. It is clear, that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen at birth, although even here there are exceptions like if the parents are dignitaries from another country, if the parents are foreign army invaders, and if they are American Indians from reservations (although I am not sure of the last. For example, if a Native American residing on a reservation, drives out of the reservation, and by accident or intentionally gives birth on U.S. soil, is the child a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. as well as being a citizen of the Native American tribal nation?) In my humble opinion, the sentence should be "It is clear that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen with certain exceptions. ....... Although in general, modern university academics, and today's legal scholars have tend to equate "natural born" with "native born," the Founding Fathers in their time may not have simply equate "natural born" with "native born" as explained in the early part of the original Wiki article of describing that an early draft of the Constitution did not have the words "natural born" which were later included in the final Constitution after John Jay recommended the extra requirement of these words be added. On Youtube, there are advocates who claim that The Law of Nations were read by many Founding Fathers, and who said that the The Law of Nations (book) defined "natural born" as being born on the native soil of the country with also both parents being citizens of the country. (I have not read The Law of Nations, but assume it defined natural-born as soil and parentage as said by these YouTube presenters.) From the practice at the time of the Founding Fathers, it seems that having both parents being citizens was as important as being born on the soil, which I illustrated with how the Founding Fathers treated the citizenship of mix-blood off-springs, which were fairly common at the time of the Founding Fathers. Slaves were not considered citizens at that time, and thus their children were not considered citizens even though they were born on U.S. soil. Although I have not studied this, I assume at the time of the Founding Fathers, American Indians were not considered natural-born citizens, even though they had been born on American soil for thousands of years. Until the end of the Civil War, mix-blood children of U.S. citizens with none citizen slaves were not considered natural-born citizens, nor any citizen period. For example, the children of the foremost U.S. citizen Jefferson with three-quarter white slave Sally Hemmings were not automatically considered citizens, even though these children were 7/8 white. Yes, written opinions in court cases may present light on the meaning of "natural born citizens" as intended by the Founding Fathers, but they are not the only source, as how the Founding Fathers actually bestowed citizenship in practice during their time also shows what the Founding Fathers intentions were in thousand and thousands of cases of mix-blood children of slaves with their U.S. citizen owners, and of cases with Native Americans. Actions in the many thousands may speak louder than words in a very few court documents on the mentality of the Founding Fathers, and should these many thousands of actions in practice be ignored? Now, the modern academics tend to poo-poo the "natural born" clause addition, and they want to water it down, and to push it aside. Is that wise to assume that modern scholars are wiser than the Founding Fathers, who were great men in founding the first Democratic country as ancient Athens felled? Is the Wiki article not sufficiently complete on the "natural born" issue of interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended when the article does not include all the known facts? By not including all the known facts, the article may be insufficiently complete. Is not proposing to make the article more complete by adding more relevant known facts is to proposing to improving the article? 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Ric As the provided link explained, editors' personal beliefs cannot be the bases for Wikipedia's articles; reliable sources are required. If there are "missing facts," please provide reliable sources that document them. --Weazie (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you, Weazie. It is important that editors remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a philosophical or political discussion forum. As you correctly state, all "facts" must be cited to reliable sources. American In Brazil (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Ric The relations between Sally Heming and Jefferson (or Jefferson family members) are all sourced from about half dozen Wikipedia articles (which list references) on the subject of the status of her, and her children sired by Jefferson (or Jefferson's brother, as the DNA test results of the descendants performed a few years ago were not accurate enough to pin point whether it was Jefferson himself or Jefferson's brother, as the DNA tests done so many years later just showed it is pin pointing to just to some Jefferson male line.) Search Widipedia on "Thomas Jefferson" "Jefferson Sally Heming controversy" "Decendants and children of Sally Heming". The book "The Law of Nations" Wikipedia article is very brief, and the article does not mention what was stated in the book concerning the term "natural born citizen", but these document may not be that important, as the Founding Fathers were creating a new nation (as Lincoln later said) with a revolutionary new democratic system, so that any documents at the time of the Founding Fathers might had served as guides to them, but they very well might not had adopted any of them verbatim, plus as there were many numbers of Founding Fathers in the convention to write the Constitution with varying backgrounds such as north and south, different Founding Fathers might had slightly different understandings of term, just like in today's times. Thus, none of these documents that were available at the Founding Fathers times can be considered as exact source for the Founding Fathers, unless there are found evident that shows that they were copying verbatim from these prior documents of the time. As creator of a new nation with a revolutionary new system, democracy, the Founding Fathers were not just copying prior material in a verbatim manner. 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Ric An editor's beliefs as to the relevance these events is original research; Wikipedia requires reliable sources to assert relevance, and to support the inferences being drawn. --Weazie (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC) 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Ric During the Founding Fathers time, huge numbers of people born in the US were not automatically granted US citizenship, and thus they were also not granted natural born citizen status. These were the slaves, and Native Americans (ie. American Indians as they were known at that time) as well as those born of a US citizen with slaves, as children born of a US citizen with a slave remained slaves. There were state laws in those times that precluded granting automatic citizenship to these people. A Federal law was needed to override these state laws, and the 14th Amendment was adopted because of this large number of native-born people were not automatically granted US citizenship, nor any natural born US citizenship. The 14th Amendment Section 1 states "All persons born .... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" in order to change the fact that large numbers of people born on US soil were not automatically granted US citizenship, nor natural born US citizenship for the half century from the Founding Fathers' creation of the US Constitution until the end of the American Civil War with the adoption of the 14-Amendment. The 14th-Amendment did not use the term "natural born citizen" that left the term still not clarified according to many today. 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Ric 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Ric Until after WW2, upper government officers in the arm forces were generally white in that black, and other minority troops like the Japanese American US troops during WW2 were commanded by white officers at the top of these troops during the American Civil War, and during WW2. As well, any blacks serving in the US Continental Army during the American Revolution were commanded by European commanders. From before the Founding Fathers time until fairly recently, minorities are not allowed to hold commanding positions in America, which pretty much also precludes the top commanding position of the Commander in Chief of the US position until well after WW2. 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Ric Inferences will not be offered from the above two statements to avoid being original. Wikipedia articles and references to support the above facts will not be made just now to save labor, until there are some indications that others are willing to consider this angle of history, as it can be controversial, as some people are uncomfortable with the racial and slavery facets of the Founding Fathers inherited from the British colonial times, although Widipedia itself in many articles do discuss many historical facts in detail of slavery and race during the Founding Fathers time. Please allow me to again refer you to Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources and original research; the policy on synthesis may also be useful. Weazie (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC) This article is good and evolving. As an encyclopedia WP articles must adhere to WP principles: No original research, reliable sources for all cited facts and no synthesis. American In Brazil (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC) 2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Ric During American colonial times, and for four scores and seven years after the American Revolutionary war, citizenship by parentage law was well known by the many Founding Fathers who owned slaves, as such jus sanguinis American law was practiced as described in Wikipedia: "Partus sequitur ventrem, often abbreviated to partus, in the British North American colonies and later in the United States, was a legal doctrine which the English royal colonies incorporated in legislation related to definitions of slavery. It was derived from the Roman civil law; it held that the slave status of a child followed that of his or her mother. It was widely adopted into the laws of slavery in the colonies and the following United States."2604:2000:A100:5D00:230:65FF:FEEF:A464 (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Ric WP:NOTAFORUM; cheers. --Weazie (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natural-born-citizen clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20080922222958/http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

President of the U.S. != President of the State governed

This edit changed "President or Vice President" in the article's lead sentence to President of the State governed, and ended up inserting a broken wikilink. Several edits followed, fixing and unfixing the broken wikilink but leaving the wording change intact. Then, in this edit, I restored the earlier wording. In my opinion this wording change would, at best, introduce confusion which would require clarification to avoid. It would also arguably introduce a clash/disconnect/disagreement between this article and the Governor article re the meaning of the word Governor in the case of the chief executive of the government of the United States of America. Referring to the President of the U.S. as the Governor of the (federated) United States, or somesuch, would, IMO, introduce confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the dickens the original editor meant by that edit, unless it was some kind of weird ideological or semantic point of the kind delighted in by tax protestors and other pseudo-law junkies. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Interpretation by the Courts

This statement is incorrect and should be removed:

'The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898),[54] which similarly held a child born in the United States of two Chinese parents was a "natural born" U.S. citizen.[55]'

Nowhere in the text of the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) does it state that Wong Kim Ark or any child born in the United States of two Chinese parents is a "natural born" U.S. citizen. Bbigjohnson (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bbigjohnson: The article United States v. Wong Kim Ark states that "United States v. Wong Kim Ark is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who were carrying on business there other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen." That seems to be what the statement you want removed says, at least to me. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't say "U.S. Citizen" on this page. It says that he was a "natural born" U.S. Citizen. He was not. The Supreme Court did not say he was a "natural born" U.S. Citizen. They ruled he was a U.S. Citizen. There is a difference between the two. Bbigjohnson (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This article states

The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which similarly held a child born in the United States of two Chinese parents was a "natural born" U.S. citizen.

U.S. v. Wog Kim Arc states, in the passage stating the opinion of the court,

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Since exact wording is an issue in this article, it might be better to use the wording of the court, that the person so situated "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." Jc3s5h (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I made that change. If anything, it clarifies why many define "natural-born citizen" as one who "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States," as the Wong Kim Ark court relied on Lynch in determining that he was a citizen. --Weazie (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually you are changing the meaning of what the Wong Kim Ark Court said by saying that "it clarifies why many define "natural-born citizen" as one who "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States," What you have stated is the 1/2 truth people want to use to say that the 14th Amendment makes a person a natural born citizen. It does not. In the very same Court Justice Gray writing the opinion of the Court said this, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens." He also wrote specifically addressing the 14th Amendment, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens." Did you get that? The 14th Amendment does NOT grant natural born citizenship to anyone. The Supreme Court was left to define natural born citizen and they did. The reason the Court did not rule Ark to be a natural born citizen was because there was no vehicle to make him fit the definition of natural born citizen that the Court had stated earlier in it's ruling. So what you have in Ark is the Court saying 1) the 14th doesn't say who is a natural born citizen. 2) defining what a natural born citizen is 3) declared Ark a CITIZEN not a natural born citizen. BTW Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite said the same thing specifically addressing the 14th Amendment, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens." 2603:6010:8400:657E:7423:233D:4866:927B (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer but, as I see this:

• The Lynch case was a New York State case, decided at the New York state level by a New York state court.
• That New York state court did not have the authority to bind other states or the federal government by that decision.
• The Wong Kim Ark case was a Scotus case.
• The Scotus Wong Kim Ark decision cited the New York state Lynch decision, paraphrasing a snippet from that state court decision in a manner which, following the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, did not incorporate the term Natural Born Citizen and thereby avoided ruling unnecessarily on a constitutional issue.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Non-U.S. births of presidential parents

This edit caught my eye. Here is how I read it from the cited sources ([2] and [3])

• Andrew Jackson: both parents born in what is now Northern Ireland
• Chester A. Arthur: Canadian father born in what is now Northern Ireland and emigrated to Canada in 1819 or 1820
• James Buchanan: father born in Ireland
• Woodrow Wilson: mother born in England
• Herbert Hoover: mother born in Canada
• Barack Obama: British and/or Kenyan father born in British colony of Kenya
• Donald Trump: mother born in Scotland, naturalized in 1942 prior to Donald's birth

I've tweaked the article here to better agree with this, though I'm not sure of the citizenship status of some presidential parents not born in the U.S. at the time of the birth of their president-to-be offspring. Please tweak this further as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have tweaked it twice you should have gotten your facts straight. Every President you mentioned had parents who were U.S. citizens (some naturalized) at the time of their birth EXCEPT Chester Authur and Obama. Obama had the media run interference for him as he did not fit the Supreme Court definition of natural born citizen either. Arthur destroyed his personal papers to hide the fact he did not meet the Supreme Court standard birth requirements of "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens." It doesn't matter where the parents were born. IT DOES MATTER whether they were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. 2603:6010:8400:657E:7423:233D:4866:927B (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed addition for COI check

I propose to add the following to the 'Foreign Soil' subsection immediately after the block quotation from the 2016 CRS report ending 'Legal scholars in the field of citizenship have asserted that this common understanding and legal meaning in England and in the American colonies was incorporated into the usage and intent of the term in the U.S. Constitution to include those who are citizens at birth.'

However, the use of the term 'considered as natural born' in congressional debates over the Naturalization Act of 1790 might controvert the asserted common understanding. The first draft of the final bill provided that foreign-born children of citizens would be considered as natural born citizens on their coming to reside in the United States; another proposal would have considered them as natural born only during their minority (with their citizenship expiring before they reached the thirty five year minimum age for presidential eligibility); another would have considered all naturalized aliens as natural born citizens; and a final proposal would have considered all alien minors as natural born citizens upon the naturalization of their parents.

The footnote reference will be: John Vlahoplus, 'Toward Natural Born Derivative Citizenship,' British Journal of American Legal Studies, Vol. 7 (forthcoming 2018), pp. 36-37, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2915556.

Does anyone object? Ekhinos (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I object. I don't think it's appropriate for a Wikipedia editor to conjure up rather obscure congressional debates and drafts to contest the Congressional Research Service, which in essence is a secondary source. I think you would have to find a reasonably modern secondary source that discusses the significance, or lack thereof, of those debates and drafts. "Forthcoming" isn't published, and sources used in Wikipedia must be published. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

To add to that, according to author's CV, he graduated from Harvard Law and Oxford, but hasn't practiced law in nearly 25 years; he has not shown any specialty in constitutional law. And the British Journal of American Legal Studies is attached to the Birmingham City [UK] University's law school. In other words, there may be WP:SCHOLARSHIP issues. --Weazie (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Ekhinos (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we make this more precise?

The second paragraph contains the line, "The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States.". I would modify this to read, "that natural-born citizens include (but are not limited to), subject to exceptions..." The word "include" is literally correct, but it could be misinterpreted so as to suggest that being born physically in the U.S. is necessary. A few contrary examples exist: During the 1964 Presidential elections, it was pointed out that Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory in 1909, about three years before Arizona became a State. That wasn't seen at the time to be a problem. Similarly, John McCain in 2008 was known to have been born in the Canal Zone in Panama, a region eventually ceded back to Panama decades later. Even more recently, in 2015/2016 Presidential candidate Ted Cruz was known to have been born in Canada, to an American mother, and it is generally concluded that Cruz is a "natural born American citizen". However, there are exceptions to the exceptions. I am currently involved in editing the article "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories", in which I believe that editor Weazie over-enthusiastically defends Obama's cause. Yet, in that very unusual case, while Barack Obama was born to a mother who was clearly an American, herself born in the U.S. to U.S. Citizens, when Obama was born the relevant citizenship law required that if a child is born to an American mother (and a non-citizen father), that child's citizenship depends on his mother's fulfilling a requirement of having resided in the U.S. for at least 10 years, of which at least 5 of them had to have occurred after the mother attained the age of 14. Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was under the age of 19 when Obama was born. Thus if, hypothetically, Obama had been born outside of the U.S. (and outside its territories) at the time he was, not merely would he not have been a natural-born citizen, he wouldn't have been a U.S. citizen at all! (That law was eventually changed, but it wasn't changed retroactively.) Even today, there are segments in the article "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories" which cite quotations which reflect an (incorrect) belief that if a person's mother is a U.S. citizen, that person must also be a U.S. citizen at birth. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As the very next sentence of the lede explains, there is a scholarly debate as to whether birth in the United States is a necessity, as some scholars do believe it is necessary and that natural-born citizenship is limited to those born in the United States. As this article discusses the majority and minority (non-fringe) positions on whether birth in the United States is necessary, the lede should not discount the existence of the minority position. --Weazie (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Who are these scholars who "believe it is necessary and that natural-born citizenship is limited to those born in the United States"? I definitely don't agree with that position, but if there are reliable sources which identify them and expound their arguments, why not include them here? I'd like to read their ideas, and their arguments supporting them. 97.120.31.14 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

They are already included, in the "Foreign Soil" and "Ted Cruz" sections of this article. --Weazie (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

How about Supreme Court Justices? Would they be considered Constitutional scholars?

Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite and Supreme Court Justice Gray both wrote specifically addressing the 14th Amendment, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens." meaning the Constitution does not grant natural born citizenship. And Justice Gray stated the standard birth circumstances that has been used in the Supreme Court since 1814, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens." Mentioning people who were candidates for President that did not meet the Supreme Court standard birth circumstances doesn't change the standard set by the Court. The law didn't change because someone violated it. 2603:6010:8400:657E:7423:233D:4866:927B (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Natural-born-citizen clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210091436/http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html to http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Natural-born-citizen clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204020457/http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdf to http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204020457/http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdf to http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322205639/http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293382/birther-bid-to-derail-obama-blocked to http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293382/birther-bid-to-derail-obama-blocked
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160219082825/http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20160101/NEWS03/160109989 to http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20160101/NEWS03/160109989
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160219092734/http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/rubio-seeks-to-dismiss-court-challenge-to-his-eligibility-to-be-president/2261269 to http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/rubio-seeks-to-dismiss-court-challenge-to-his-eligibility-to-be-president/2261269
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/2541002/ted-cruz-illinois-natural-born-citizen

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Naturalization

“ In 1940, however, the federal law was amended to explicitly define "naturalization" as conferring nationality after birth.”

What law was that?

And afterwards, was someone born outside the US with one US parent naturalized after his birth? Or was he considered a US citizen at birth? In the first case he cannot be President.

Ted Cruz would like to know the answer. But let’s have a citation of the 1940 law change, anyway. 73.189.13.57 (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. See this edit. I don't understand how you think this impacts Ted Cruz, as the article says: "he was granted U.S. citizenship at the time of his birth by the virtue of his mother's citizenship". But nevermind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The Supreme Court case Bellei directly applies to Ted Cruz as to his birth circumstances in regards to being a natural born citizen. At both sides of the Justices agreed that Bellei was a "naturalized" citizen AT BIRTH. BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and HARLAN, STEWART, and WHITE, JJ., joined.

"Mr. Justice Gray has observed "But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." ..... the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute...... Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process 2603:6010:8400:657E:7423:233D:4866:927B (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Move Interpretations by the Courts to before Government Officials's interpretations

Court cases hold precedent over opinions by government officials. Thus recommend moving the section "4.3 Interpretations by the courts" to before "4.2 Government officials' interpretations"DLH (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris' eligibility undoubtedly is being questioned; that is why I added her to the list of candidates who have been questioned. The motives of those questioning her (and their bases) are not relevant. --Weazie (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Are the only people with claims of having a natural-born citizenship problem those who are listed at Natural-born-citizen clause#2000s 3? Harris and Gabbard are not even candidates for PoTUS and mentioning them seems WP:UNDUE. Is this article intended to list every person that someone has claimed to have a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The ones listed have reliable sources to document their eligibility being questioned. Harris and Gabbard are both declared candidates. (And Jindal is listed as a questioned candidate (and was subject to ballot challenges), and he dropped out before the 2016 primaries started.) --Weazie (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

These people are not (yet) running for office as they need to become the nominee first. I agree that makes them candidates in a round-about sense but the main question should be whether this page is a list of everyone who has ever had a claim against them. There are very few articles which purport to list every occurrence of the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I think here the problem of UNDUE is relevant because the only person making these claims is Jacob Wohl, someone who has repeatedly made false claims. If this goes beyond one convicted fraudster making wild claims, then it might be significant enough for inclusion. As for Gabbard, the source does not even claim that someone questioned her citizenship, just that it might happen in the future. Regards SoWhy 10:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Jindal, Cruz, and Rubio did not receive the nomination, yet they were challenged (and included here). And Wohl is not the only person to be making the eligibility challenge; rather, he's (so far) the only person to receive coverage for doing so. (The same with Gabbard: there are people who are challenging her; they have not yet been reported about.) I can guarantee that the birthers who filed eligibility challenges against Obama, Jindal, Cruz, and Rubio also will file challenges against Harris and Gabbard. --Weazie (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

When the material about Senator Harris was first added, the reliable source cited was Talking Points Memo, a source I'm not familiar with. But now it is appearing in sources I am more familiar with, such as Newsweek. In view of the story appearing in multiple mainstream sources, I think it belongs in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerning whether those who have recognized presidential campaigns but have not yet won a primary, I'll quote Boss Tweed: "I don’t care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." In American presidential politics, the primary elections or caucuses are just as important as the general election. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Weasel words

Rather than revert and go through the drill that comes with reverting. I bring this issue(s) here. The third paragraph of the lede commences with this "The first nine presidents were all citizens at the adoption of the constitution in 1789, with all being born within the territory assigned to the United States by the Treaty of Paris" These are weasel words. At the time of their birth those nine presidents were born in a British Colony, that they attained citizenship by the Treaty of Paris is not relevant, this is tantamount to saying that Schwarzenegger is eligible because he becdame an American citizen, nor is relevant to them being considered natural born citizens (whatever that is). That they were elected and served as president renders the situation as a historical curiosity, relevant to the present only (and maybe) as a form of precedence. Inovcation of the Treaty of Paris to justify subsequent history is specious.

Harris and Gabbard are non issues, just as were Rubio and Jindal, the constitution says nothing about the parents status. Jindal was an anchor baby, so what. Harris and Gabbards parents were not both Americancitizens so what, However they do meet the qualifications set forth in the constitution..full stop, mike drop.

On the other hand Romney and Cruz do not and did not, and the fact that they were even on the primary ballot of the GOP, while at the same time, the current POTUS was investing money and time to delegitimize the then POTUS, raises serious questions of hypocrisy. And the Romney, Cruz situation is not at all moot, as most certainly Romney will, based on current positions taken, be running a third time and who knows who else (Democrat or Republican or third party) will be throwing their hat in the ring. It would be helpful if the question was resolved ahead of time, but such resolution will be tainted by the political-ideological proclivities of the deciders.

Simply put, using the argument of the "birthers", if Obama was not eligible for the office of presidency (for the sake of argument accepting their conspiracy theory) then neither was Romney and Cruz, yet that issue was never raised, as I could see, by their pundits,media, talkers, etc. Perhaps the Democratic party would have raised the issue had either of them won their primaries. (I doubt it)Oldperson (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

First, as already mentioned at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, the possible Romney eligibility question pertained to George W. Romney, Mitt's father, who sought the 1968 Republican nomination. George Romney was born to American parents in Mexico, and honest differences of opinion may exist (and indeed did exist in 1967/68) over whether he qualified as a natural-born citizen, but the issue wasn't investigated in depth at the time because Romney's presidential bid fizzled for unrelated reasons. George Romney died in 1995 and is not going to be running for President again. His son Mitt, on the other hand, was born in the US, to two American parents, and Mitt's status as a natural-born citizen is (AFAIK) not in dispute even under the narrowest possible proposed definition of the constitutional term.

A few believed Mitt was ineligible. The theory being that George (due his birth in Mexico) was not a U.S. citizen; therefore, Mitt lacked two U.S. citizen parents. Since this is the fringe on WP:FRINGE, it doesn't seem worth mentioning in this article. --Weazie (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As for the rest of your argument, the question of whether "natural-born citizen" can only mean "born in the US" is a matter of legitimate dispute by recognized legal scholars, and the Natural-born-citizen clause article must (as indeed it does) acknowledge the multiple viewpoints without concluding that any one of them is obviously the only correct view. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The point of this article is not to adjudicate who is a natural-born citizen; rather, it is to note discussions around the meaning of the term and its applicability to various candidates. That an editor here personally believes a particular candidate is (or is not) eligible is not relevant to the article (and against WP:NOTAFORUM).

"[W]ith all being born within the territory assigned to the United States by the Treaty of Paris" clarifies how it was determined who was a citizen of the United States at the time of the U.S. Constitution's adoption (it specifies what, at that point in time, constituted the "United States"). Whether such level of detail is lede-worthy is debatable, but its use doesn't violate WP:WEASEL. Weazie (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You said "Harris and Gabbard are non issues, just as were Rubio and Jindal, the constitution says nothing about the parents status. Jindal was an anchor baby, so what. Harris and Gabbards parents were not both Americancitizens so what, However they do meet the qualifications set forth in the constitution..full stop, mike drop." What Constitution were you reading? Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite and Supreme Court Justice Gray both wrote in 2 different Courts and 2 different cases, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens." Did you get that? The 14th Amendment does NOT grant natural born citizenship to anyone. So what part of the Constitution qualified them to be natural born citizens? The answer is no part. So you have to go to the Supreme court to see what they say about natural born citizen. Justice Gray stated the standard birth circumstances needed to be a natural born citizen this way, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens." And that has been the standard since 1814. 2603:6010:8400:657E:7423:233D:4866:927B (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Off-point: 'at the moment of birth'

This edit, changing Most to Some,caught my eye. What concerns me, though, is not that change but the complete edited sentence:

Some scholars have also concluded that those who meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at the moment of birth", regardless of place of birth, are also natural-born citizens.

That says to me that the point here concerns the moment of birth. That, as I understand it, is not the point here at all. A reading of the cited sources makes it clear that the moment of birth (vs. some other moment) is not the point. The point is the situational circumstances of birth, and whether or not those circumstances meet the requirements for the birth of a natural-born citizen.

The snippet quoted above is a complete sentence. A sentence is a set of words that in principle expresses a complete thought. However, the sentence quoted above expresses a complete thought which is off-point.

This originally came into the article in this 2016 edit as follows:

The emerging consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States, and those born elsewhere if they meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at the moment of birth", but the matter remains unsettled.

The quote from the NBC News source mentioning birthright citizenship vs. later acquisition of citizenship through naturalization focuses on the situational circumstances of the birth, not on the moment itself. As the sentence at issue here came into the article, the point was clear both in the article prose and in the quote from the cited source. Though the cite has remained, the point in the article prose had become unclear with the paring-out of the central point. I have restored the sentence to its original form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs) 12:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Suppose a person were not a citizen at birth as the law existed when the person was born. But later a law was passed that retroactively recognized the person as a citizen at birth. Would the person be eligible to be president? Of course there is no clear answer, but I wonder if this case would be distinct from the case of a person who was a citizen at birth under the law as it existed at the moment of birth. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This very issue was raised during the 2008 campaign of John McCain (see the section about McCain in this article). The argument, as I understand it, is over whether a retroactive declaration that someone has been a citizen since birth suffices to make him/her "natural born", or whether this is actually an instance of naturalization (i.e., conferring of citizenship after birth) and the alleged retroactive nature of the conferral is constitutionally irrelevant. As for the general question of whether citizenship resulting from birth outside the US does or doesn't qualify as "natural born", there are people who argue (per the "uniform rule of naturalization" clause) that any citizenship resulting from an act of Congress is "naturalization" by definition; that only people born in the US (and thereby citizens via the citizenship clause) can be considered "natural born"; and that anyone born outside the US who is legally a citizen since birth by statute was "naturalized at birth" and not natural born. As pointed out in the article, this whole mess has never been authoritatively settled by the courts, and indeed it may never be if the courts decide it's a non-justiciable political question. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, as I see it (not that the way I see it matters a whit), the question is whether a person becomes a citizen at the instant of birth or becomes a citizen some time (no matter the value of some -- could be decades or could be an invisibly small fraction of a nanosecond) subsequent to birth. It is generally uncontested that a person born in the U.S. is a citizen at birth (by jus soli), and that this has been the case since the adoption of the constitution. If a person becomes a citizen by application of law (e.g., a law specifying that jus sanguinis pertains in that person's case), it can be argued that the law can apply to a person only once personhood is achieved -- that a fetus cannot be a citizen, that only a person can be a citizen, and that person is not a person until after that person has been born. It's a fine point, and I don't state it well, but that point seems to me to be the crux of the issue. Said another way, a person who becomes a citizen by application of ordinary law can be argued to have had his citizenship naturalized by that application of ordinary law -- naturalized by the situational circumstances of birth or by whatever else is specified in that ordinary law. On the other hand, it can be argued that this is not the case. The question is undecided.

Perhaps once this is settled, we can consider how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I separated the clause-heavy sentence in the lede back to its original format, i.e., two sentences. In addition to being better writing, there is no doubt among scholars and experts that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship. And this article--especially the lede--should not suggest otherwise.

As for citizenship at birth (occurring outside of the United States) the "emerging consensus" quote is from an article that pre-dated many of the 2016 Cruz eligibility challenges. Cruz went on to win every eligibility challenge, and some were on the merits, including, notably, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Which is not to say the matter is truly settled, but it is more settled than suggested by the recent edits. --Weazie (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

References

terms in terms of terms

The use of the term "natural born" was not without precedent. An early recorded mention was in Calvin's Case (1608), in terms of birth within the jurisdiction of the sovereignty of the King.

Here is an outstanding example of why I dislike the phrase in terms of. What the hell does it mean here? Does it mean meaning, or defined by, or in the context of, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Citizen at time of adoption

How was it determined who was a "citizen of the United States" at the time of adoption of the constitution? Did the individual states have their own citizenship laws? Had the Continental Congress passed any laws on citizenship? Were older British citizenship laws applied? Grover cleveland (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That's better suited for the Reference Desk. This page is for suggesting improvements to the article.

Short version is that people were citizens of the British Empire until the revolution, and States basically followed English common law at the time & under the Articles of Confederation. This was later replaced with the Constitution, which spelled out citizenship. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict), the above explanation is probably better. I'm no lawyer, but I see that the third and fourth paragraphs of the left hand column at Michael W. Cluskey (1860), The Political Text-book, Or Encyclopedia, J.B. Smith & Company, p. 177, in a comment about a case called Gassies v. Balloon which began on the previous page, seem to offer an answer. As I read that, the government established on November 15, 1777 by the Articles of Confederation was a "government of the United States", and citizens under that government were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution. Article 4 of those Articles, here, seems to imply that "free citizens", "in the several states" were considered to be citizens of the United States under that confederation. That seems to say that a person who any of the states considered to be a free citizen of that state at the time of the adoption of the constitution was considered to be a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution. Someone who is a constitutional lawyer or a constitutional historian might speak up here to tell me that I have that wrong and to explain why. This is probably worth a footnote explaining it and/or referring to a WP:SS detail article (United States nationality law?) where an explanation might be found. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Imbalance

This article is totally unballanced. It spends most of its length talking about the relatively simple case of people born in the US, who are natural born citzens (with some discussion about two recurring exceptions) but has much less about what kind of person born outside the US can be considered a "natural born citizen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.161.64 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Natural-born Citizen was defined prior to the United States adopting a Constitution.

If Booper66 obviously wasn't trying to get "this material added to the article", then this section violates WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Emmerich de Vattel’s book Laws of Nations which was first published in 1758 defines "natural-born citizen". An English version was published in 1760 and we know that it was in the hands of our Founders no later than 1775. According to Wikipedia's articles on Law of Nations and Vattel himself: "Swiss editor Charles W.F. Dumas sent Benjamin Franklin three original French copies of the book. Franklin presented one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia. On December 9, 1775, Franklin thanked Dumas:[4][5] "It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations." Franklin also said that this book by Vattel, "has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting" Vattel's book is also mentioned in "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence, Volume 1" on page 604: "Mr. Dumas, who had made international law his specialty, recalled himself very acceptably to Dr. Franklin in the autumn of 1775, by sending him copies of Vattel, edited and annotated by himself; a most timely gift, which was pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents." Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged Vattel's influence on "America's Founders" in her Press Statement "On the Occassion of Switzerland's National Day" posted July 29, 2011 which states "America’s Founders were inspired by the ideas and values of early Swiss philosophers like Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui and Emer de Vattel..." Quote of section #212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, written in 1758: "§ 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. " Booper66 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Vattel already is discussed in the article. Weazie (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC) And I elaborated on some facts that were not even mentioned.Booper66 (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Your "facts" lack reliable sources or unduly rely on synthesis. The archives have prior discussions about the relative weight to give to Vattel. --Weazie (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC) These points essentially mirror a discussion from 2011, which, coincidentally coincided with President Obama's then-looming re-election. --Weazie (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC) My "facts" are quotes taken from sources at the Library of Congress, Hillary Clinton, and Vattel's book. My "facts" demonstrate that Vattel's book was "frequently" consulted and "continually in the hands of members of our Congress" then sitting. The article states "The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase...."; however, my "facts" demonstrate that "natural-born citizen" was defined by a book "which was pounced upon by studious members of Congress" then sitting. Booper66 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC) You may believe so, but for inclusion in any Wikipedia article, you'll need a reliable source that says that. --Weazie (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Wait, Booper66. You are going to sit on this talk page and argue, pace everything, that "natural born citizen" means what Vattel said it means, an opinion which, as is noted in our article, is not widely accepted. And you're going to argue that Vattel is right and that this applies to US law because a. Vattel said so and he was right; b. Hilary Clinton said Vattel had had influence; and c. Franklin said people read his book. I'm sorry, but no one is going to buy that, and I wonder if we shouldn't just shut down all this needless speculation, for which God and his Founding Fathers gave us Facebook. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) The article states "The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase...." and I'm showing you that the term was defined before the Constitution was adopted and the source of that definition was "frequently" consulted and "continually in the hands of members of our Congress" then sitting. If not Vattel's definition then who's? Apparently Chief Justice Waite's "opinion" was acceptable when in 1875 he stated: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Maybe you and others who don't agree should listen to Chief Justice Waite and "resort" to "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar". So which "nomenclature" he was referring if not Vattel's. I can see why some might have a difficult time figuring that out if he hadn't defined the term almost verbatim......"These were natives, or natural-born citizens...." Who is he defining? "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens". Are you going to sit on the talk page and argue? Booper66 (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC) The talk page is not a forum. It has been explained to you that, if you want to see this material added to the article, you will need reliable sources that support your beliefs. If you don't have reliable sources, arguing your point here again isn't going to change the article. --Weazie (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC) My initial comment was relevant with regard to the article's statement that "The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen" and my initial comment is relevant to the recent additions concerning Kamala Harris and the op-ed piece mentioned which "asked if Harris' parents were U.S. citizens". I used reliable sources which included quotes from historical documents at the Library of Congress (which by the way were referenced in separate Wikipedia articles about Vattel and his book Law of Nations), a press statement from Hillary Clinton, a quote from Vettal's book Laws of Nations which defines "natural-born citizens", and a quote from a court opinion provided by Chief Justice Waite. This is a talk page so I obviously wasn't trying to get "this material added to the article" and you're the one attempting to turn this into a forum. Booper66 (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) The talk page isn't to discuss to the topic; it is to discuss how to improve the article. If you aren't here to improve an encyclopedia, this may not be the place for you. --Weazie (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I did discuss how to improve the article.Booper66 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

hyphens and capital

I'm not sure how important this consistency is, but I noticed something that doesn't line up about formatting here.

The File:NaturalBornCitizenClause.jpg is included in this article, which I would transcribe as organizing the key three words in this manner:

a natural born Citizen

What I observe is:

There is no hyphen between "natural" and "born"

There is no hyphen between "born" and "Citizen"

The word "citizen" is capitalized as "Citizen"

Given how this is describing the clause from the 1780s, I am wondering why Wikipedia does not use the formatting used in that document.

What I would expect to see:

natural born Citizen clause

Why are hyphens added, and why is C lowercased?

Furthermore: note the first sentence of this article:

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States

This is inconsistent with the present URL, because it includes only one hyphen instead of two. It has a hyphen between "natural" and "born" but the 2nd hyphen in the URL between "born" and "citizen" is not there.

It seems strange to play fast and loose with formatting like this. The formatting of a phrase in our URL should be consistent with the formatting of the phrase in the first sentence.

I would also posit we explore whether we should be inserting hyphens here.

Perhaps this is to emphasize our perception of the importance of these 2 or 3 words (again, how many depending if you look at the "n-b-c" URL or the "n-b c" 1st sentence) having a connection to one another, but is that just the perception of some Wikipedia editors, or has there been consensus in reliable sources that we ought to deviate from the "natural born Citizen" style used in the original document? 64.228.90.251 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that the various scribes who wrote out the Constitution did not write identically. It's possible the text in the article was taken from a different copy of the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 12:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Protection?

Given the renewed interest in this topic, would temporary semi-protected edit status (i.e., no unconfirmed editors) be prudent? --Weazie (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Too early right now for semi-protection. However, pending changes protection might be appropriate — this would allow anyone to edit, but changes made by brand-new editors (or IP editors) would not be visible to readers in general until said changes were approved by an authorized reviewer. Given the way this article has suddenly become a hot spot and is likely to attract "true believers" to "correct" the "mistakes" they see here, pending changes protection is probably a good idea. As an admin, I could enable this level of protection, but I would really prefer to see someone else do so — someone who doesn't already have a years-long history of interest and involvement in the subject matter. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how these things work. Is there some kind of noticeboard where one can make these kinds of requests? --Weazie (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RFPP. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I note that someone at WP:RFPP has imposed "semi-protection" on this article, until 23:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC). This will prevent new accounts, and people editing without an account (IP addresses), from making any changes at all to the article (though it's still possible to make comments here on the talk page). We'll need to reevaluate the situation in a week's time, after the current protection has lapsed, and see whether protection of whatever form is or is not still called for. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

An editor wants to put in the article some conspiracy theory about how Harris is not eligible to be POTUS. Please stop. Harris was born in Oakland, California, which last time I checked in the U.S., making her a U.S. citizen. It does not matter what the legal status of her parents were at the time. This rule has not codified or litigated by the U.S. Supreme Court, but right now it is the law so drop it. - CharlesShirley (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The claim that a natural-born citizen must not only have been born in the US, but must also have been born as the child of two American parents, has been floating around for some time — it's not brand new w/r/t Kamala Harris, it was raised many times by opponents of Barack Obama (whose father was never a US citizen). The argument is grounded in a comment taken from an 18th-century treatise on politics (The Law of Nations by Emerich de Vattel), which a handful of fringe theorists have tried to argue had been elevated to authoritative status by virtue of a passing mention by the SCOTUS majority in an 1875 voting rights case (Minor v. Happersett). If you look at the article on Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation, you'll see that a few people tried to cite Minor v. Happersett in support of their claims that Obama was not a natural-born citizen, but all such attempts were summarily rejected. Several years ago, some of us debated the question of whether this issue should be brought up in the Minor v. Happersett article, and the consensus was that it was not deserving of any mention there because no mainstream legal scholar had ever mentioned it (not even to refute it). See Talk:Minor v. Happersett, which still contains the discussions on this matter from 2011 / 2012. Unless some more recent legal treatise or court decision exists that deals with this question generally (or Jacob Wohl's arguments specifically) in greater detail, I agree that the "two American parents" claim remains a baseless fringe theory not deserving of treatment here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no serious legal dispute about the birthers' beliefs: their beliefs are not just wrong, they're frivolous. Yet "questioning" a candidate also has political and social implications. There was no legal or factual basis, for example, for the challenges to President Obama's eligibility, yet Wikipedia has a constellation of articles devoted to this "fringe" belief" -- this very article provides of summary of them even though those challenges were baseless. Surely no one is suggesting that all the articles chronicling a decade-long endeavor to delegitimize Obama, his presidency, and his legacy isn't notable merely because its claims are fiction. --Weazie (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If Wohl is going to be mentioned here, I would prefer to see a better source (or sources) to clarify whether Wohl thinks Harris is not a "natural-born citizen" because her parents were not US citizens at the time of her birth, or whether he thinks she is not a US citizen at all because of her parents' alien status. Is Wohl denying Harris's natural-born status by means of a Law of Nations / Minor v. Happersett argument? Or is he denying her citizenship altogether via a birthright / "anchor baby" argument? The Newsweek article is vague about this, and I'm actually left to wonder if the writer of said article understood or cared about this distinction. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Weazie:You are attempting to put arguments in the mouths of those who disagree with you. I never said that the questions about Obama's eligibility should not be mentioned it this article or any where else. I did not say nor did Richwales above. Your response is way off the topic. What I am saying that there has not been a sustained and deliberate attack on Harris' eligibility like there was with Obama. I didn't even bring up Obama, but you have, needlessly. This discussion is not about Obama, but I will refer to Obama just to make my point about Harris. The amount of coverage of Harris' situation does not meet a level to justify mentioning it in this article. I'm talking about Wikipedia rules and custom, not about Obama. Drop the Obama stuff. It is not relevant. Yes, Yes, Yes, the same arguments were used in both cases, but it is irrelevant as to this issue: Whether or not we should drag a discussion about Harris into this article? And the answer is no. There is just not enough discussion of it to justify placing the whole nonsensical argument in the article in the first place. Just because something exists does not mean we have to cover it or talk about it. One nobody, living in nowhere land, makes a claim about Harris and we have to mention it? No. Other than a few fringe folks on FB, who exactly is writing articles saying the nonsense that Harris is ineligible? No one. It is absurd that we are legitimatizing this handful of FB nobodies. We make decisions all the time based upon how much coverage some or other gets before it goes into Wikipedia, this is no different. You made the comparison to Obama's situation, right? Is the number of people saying this stuff about Harris even close to the number of people that said this stuff about Obama? The answer is no, not at all. Just because of two or three nobodies say something stupid does not mean we have to repeat it in Wikipedia, right? The answer is right, we don't and we shouldn't. - CharlesShirley (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's Wohl. He's just stirring the pot, because that's how he pays his bills. I doubt he has any basis for his argument, he's just being a professional contrarian. As such, I don't think his opinion is relevant enough to include here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevancy is gauged by what reliable sources write about; Wohl's beliefs were written about. And it isn't just Wohl; there are many people who don't believe that Harris is eligible; Wohl is the only person (so far) to merit having articles written about him. Jindal and Rubio were subject to the same attacks, on the same fringe basis. Yet there's no desire to remove their detractors from this article. There are two distinct issues: Are the claims legally significant? No; they've been repeatedly rejected by the courts and scholars. Is it politically and socially significant that false claims are created and then draped in legalistic terms? Yes, which is why the article chronicles challenges going back to Arthur, even though those early challenges also lacked a legal basis and did not represent a significant public sentiment. Weazie (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If you wanted to argue this was relevant to Wohl's Wikipedia article, it might have merit. As it stands, we don't add every crackpot's opinion to an article on a topic. You're giving WP:UNDUE weight to his opinion here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, it wasn't just Wohl or just his opinion. Wikipedia prefers naming a speaker over the weasely "some people claim...." And this topic is going heat up again, now that Biden named Harris; it is going to spread beyond just Wohl. --Weazie (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wohl didn't specify whether he was just parroting the birther argument or if he was suggesting that Harris wasn't even a U.S. citizen. So we can't clarify what Wohl never articulated. That said, I read his comments as being just the birther argument, and not as an attack on birthright citizenship. Some debunking articles focused on just the birther argument, while others conflated the two. Weazie (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Weazie:You did not respond to my point. There are very few people making the argument and the ones that are, well, are nobodies. That was not the situation with Obama and now (your next moving target) Jindal and Rubio. - CharlesShirley (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Nobodies" also challenged Jindal, Rubio, and other candidates before them. Yet those challenges are in this article. Weazie (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And Biden just named Harris as his running mate. So I suspect this topic will soon become very relevant again. I already have an article to add to this section. Weazie (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Today, August 12, 2020, the New York Times online published a story which states in part

Harris, who was born in Oakland, California, has been the victim of online falsehoods for more than a year that say she is not eligible to become president because her parents were not born in America. More recently, Facebook users added a new twist to the misinformation: that since Harris is not eligible to be president, if Biden didn’t finish his term, the presidency would automatically default to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat.

There is no truth to that — Harris is a natural-born U.S. citizen who’s eligible to be president...

The story is titled "Women Say They Will Fight Sexism, 'Ugly' Attacks on Harris" and is attributed to The Associated Press. An unlocked version of the article is available.

I've never tried sharing an unlocked story from NYT before, I hope it works. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please leave the rhetorical response to the questioning of Harris' eligibility out of the article. I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.214.69.9 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek appended a note to Eastman's essay. It probably should be referenced or briefly quoted. --Weazie (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The article does that in the Kamala Harris section, saying "Newsweek's editors wrote that [...]". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

There are two notes: The separate note published after it published Eastman's essay; and the one it attached yesterday to Eastman's essay. This article references the first but not the second. --Weazie (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Eastman draws a distinction between "the 14th Amendment as originally understood" and the more recent interpretation. He says "The children born on U.S. soil to guest workers from Mexico during the Roaring 1920s were not viewed as citizens, for example, when, in the wake of the Great Depression, their families were repatriated to Mexico. Nor were the children born on U.S. soil to guest workers in the bracero program of the 1950s and early 1960s deemed citizens when that program ended, and their families emigrated back to their home countries." Are the quoted sentences true or false? Is he correct that 1) the interpretation has changed over time, and 2) the Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the question? —BarrelProof (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should resist the temptation of original research, and just stick the facts that are relevant to this article, i.e., Eastman made this claim about natural-born citizenship. Eastman certainly made the claims about the bracero program, but this article doesn't need to fact check him on it; it might be notable, however, if someone else (in a reliable source) fact-checked him. Eastman may be technically correct that the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed his specific belief, but numerous lower courts have, including cases cited in the article. But I think the point of this article is to create an accurate record of what was actually said and done (and words and deeds in reaction thereof), but not to adjudicate the fairness or correctness of every word or action. This article need not correct or rebuke Eastman for being wrong -- just noting that others have is sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. --Weazie (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that she's a citizen of the United States is irrelevant. What's relevant is if she meets the requirements to be President per the Constitution. If her parents were not citizens at the time of her birth then she is not a "natural born citizen". See context below.Booper66 (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your beliefs about the law is original research. --Weazie (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No it's not. My comment is based on a reliable published source called Laws of Nations by Vattel which was "frequently" consulted and "continually in the hands of members of our Congress" then sitting.. See context below.Booper66 (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the argument. Again, without a reliable source saying that Vattel was the primary inspiration for the natural-born-citizen clause, your beliefs are not going to part of this article, no matter how many times you restate them. Weazie (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to provide a reliable source that says Vattel was the "primary" inspiration. I provided a reliable source that clearly defined "natural-born citizen". I provided a reliable source that proves the source of that definition was well known at the time, "was pounced upon by studious members of Congress", and "continually in the hands of the members of our Congress" then sitting. To suggest that this is a "baseless fringe theory not deserving of treatment here" as another suggested on here is ludicrous considering at least three Supreme Court Justices referenced the same definition in court opinions during the 1800s. Booper66 (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think this article about the natural-born-citizen clause should say more about Vattel, you will need realiable sources that support your beliefs about Vattel and the clause. A generalized recognition of Vattel's work is insufficient for this article. And the article already notes Vattel was cited in Dred Scott and the dissent in Wong Kim Ark. Weazie (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What material are you wishing to add to the article? Please be specific. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe there will soon be an eligibility challenge filed against Harris. I doubt it will be reported on by reliable sources, and I'm reluctant to cite primary documents as a sole source. --Weazie (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no problem with citing a primary source document to support an assertion that it is what it is and that it says what it says. Any interpretation requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. More info at WP:PRIMARY. There are 51 separate popular elections being conducted; out of curiosity are you speaking of an expected official challenge in one or more of these, or of something else? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. I've had too many discussions about how much interpretation is allowed under WP:PRIMARY, so I find it the better practice (and easier) not to rely on just primary documents. And I'm talking about only a birther challenge; one of the people who believes that Obama was ineligible. So there's less of a chance it being reported on by a secondary source. And I think it is fairly likely that this person won't be able to serve Harris, so the lawsuit will just linger on the docket until it is dismissed for lack of service. And if that's the case, I think there may be WP:UNDUE concerns about a singular person's ineffective gesture. --Weazie (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in that scenario, it would be undue weight to even mention it in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE says that the determination turns on two things: significance and level of prominence. It's not stated there, but those things are determined by editorial consensus. It does seem that the primary source described, if it appears but is not reported by secondary sources, would probably be considered to have undue weight for mention in this article.

I did some re-reading in connection with this which, incidentally, led me to conclude that the natural-born requirement does not apply as a necessary qualifying consideration to be a candidate for Vice President -- at least as far as the U.S. constitution is concerned, though that may be a requirement under some State election laws. I mentioned previously that there are 51 separate elections now underway in which Harris is a VP candidate, and it occurs to me that, if she is elected and certified as VP, a suit might be filed at the federal level asking that the Congress be enjoined from subsequently certifying her succession to the presidency on the basis of an assertion that she does not meet the Natural Born Citizen requirement for eligibility to that office. If that came to pass, it would likely have sufficient weight for mention here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

)inserted) Scratched out the above. I failed to remember that from the 12th Amendment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The Twelfth Amendment says that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States." This seems pretty cut and dried to me; on what basis are you (or any reliable sources out there) proposing that this doesn't impose the natural-born-citizen requirement on the Vice President? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue in my mind is who makes the determination that a person is ineligible for the office of vice president? If state law does not authorize any state official to reject a nomination to appear on the November ballot, and the nomination meets all the other requirements, must the name appear on the ballot despite suspected ineligibility? Is it up to the new Congress to decide any eligibility question? I don't believe there are any clear-cut answers to these questions. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe an eligibility challenge against Harris how now been filed in a court, but it is just a birther challenge. Unless a reliable source reports on the filing (and I doubt one will), then I'm not inclined to add the filing here. In any event, it looks like it will be dismissed for procedural reasons. Weazie (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I'm aware of three pending birther challenges against Harris: two in state courts (Ohio, Virginia) and one in federal (D.D.C.). All pro per. I haven't seen a reliable source report on them. So still not inclined to add them to this article. Weazie (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Should this article be updated to reflect that Harris is now the Vice President-elect? Weazie (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
K. H. cannot become (Vice) President of the USA because Article II expressly uses the male phrase "he" to refer to those holders of office, which does not include female persons. The Constitution is unchangable, it can only be amended, but that would require supermajority of US member states, which is de facto impossible to achive post-1964. 84.236.41.64 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Don't be moronic. Even the vilest of sexist swine admits that under the customs of the era, "he" in statutes was to be interpreted to include both men and women. Singular includes plural and vice versa; male includes female and vice versa. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Further, a speculative interpretation of this sort could only be included in the article if it were substantiated by reliable sources. Find a reliable source (of a mainstream variety, not a blog) showing that recognized legal experts hold to this view, and then (and only then) maybe we can mention it in the article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Blackstone in 1765 re modern statutes

Not sure specifically what the first line is referencing, the Treason Act 1351 is "25 Edw 3 St 5 c 2" though so I assume something published long prior to the 18th century.

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2.

that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,

and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent,

might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants.

..

But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off:

so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance,

whose fathers were natural-born subjects,

are now natural-born subjects themselves,

to all intents and purposes, without any exception;

unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

Does anyone know the name of what "several more modern statutes" that Blackstone might be referring to? Their month/year of passing? 64.228.90.251 (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Elaine Chao

An IP-user (188.225.10.58) has been repeatedly adding Elaine Chao to the list of people not eligible for the Presidency. Since Ms. Chao doesn't appear to have ever indicated any desire to run for President, or to have been the object of any serious draft effort, she really doesn't belong in this article at all. Multiple editors have removed Elaine Chao from the article, but the IP has repeatedly added her back. I left a note on the IP's talk page, warning him/her about edit warring, but he/she is persisting; I honestly can't even confirm that the IP saw my user talk page warning, or even if he/she is aware of user or article talk pages. Most recently, I enabled pending-changes protection on the article. Needless to say, if anyone is aware of a reliable source confirming that Elaine Chao is or has been seriously interested in running for President, the claim (along with a cite to said reliable source) would be more than welcome here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Concur. I would go a step farther and remove the entire section because Schwarzenegger (currently the only "potential candidate") was obviously ineligible and denied interest in running. Schwarzenegger's appearance here only encourages other wish-lists "candidates," like Chao. --Weazie (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Preamble

Can somebody please add the constitution's preamble on nature's god and natural rights? Every time I mention that citizenship is born naturally, through choice and freedom, according to the construction's definition, somebody erases anything that the preamble mentions on the subject. This trend of people thinking that they are born in countries and born into different rights (while still claiming to be US Citizens) is very annoying. I'd like to highlight that people not claiming to be "born in" the country and not claiming to have parents "born in" the country etc., were literally declared as de facto "natural born citizens," such as in 1784, when the Maryland General Assembly explained that Gilbert du Motier was in fact a "natural born citizen."

All this birthright and bloodline stuff is really an offense to The United States and anybody that shares the beliefs of it's constitution. Can somebody please add notes from the preamble and explain that people are not "born in" countries or nations (if they claim support for the United States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Among the problems is that no reliable source has said the Constitution's preamble is legally relevant to the natural-born-citizen clause. And the article already notes that Maryland declared Motier (Marquis de La Fayette) to be a natural-born citizen. --Weazie (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This trend of people thinking that they are born in countries and born into different rights (while still claiming to be US Citizens) is very annoying.

... what? No seriously, what in the world are you trying to say here?

That aside, no. I reverted your addition because it's WP:SYNTH. You're trying to add your own interpretation of this topic to the article with no reliable source to back it up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll apologize up front for piling on, but basically what's been said above. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources which then are summarized in articles. Using the views and opinions of editors without those sources gets chaotic - how to handle the VAST multitude of views on this topic, which still giving the reader an overview they can have some faith? And more importantly, a way for the reader to verify that what's in the article has support in the real world. Again, that's where those sources come into play. For a topic like this, top level sources would be scholarly articles in legal journals that focus on this subject (and there are some in here). Without sources, it's called original research, meaning its purely from the editor. With a handful of sources that provide basic facts but then the editor draws their own conclusions from those facts, that's called synthesis. These are great for blogs, but not so great for Wikipedia. Hence the reverts. Ravensfire (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. The preamble to the United States Constitution doesn't say anything at all about divinely given, natural rights. You might have been thinking of the United States Declaration of Independence, which does say that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", but the Declaration of Independence doesn't say anything about natural-born citizenship, and the DoI doesn't say anything about eligibility to be the President or Vice President of the United States (there was no such thing as the United States in 1776). Any suggestion that discussion of the Constitution's natural-born-citizen clause is offensive, either to the DoI or to the preamble to the Constitution, is at best "original research" and not a valid basis for dealing with content in Wikipedia. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right, I was thinking of The Declaration of Independence, preceding The Constitution. It does discuss natural rights, however:

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle"

"all men are created ... with ... Liberty" etc.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

These are not interpretations, but direct quotes that are talking about the natural rights that we are born with. I know that Lafayette being noted as being a natural born citizen is already in the article, but it isn't really noted that Lafayette was not "born in" the USA. Nor did Lafayette have USA Parents. That's why I'm annoyed: all these people talking about being "born in the usa" and having rights here or there, when that entirely misses the point of our history. We are the only country that I know of that declared people are without governments and that they are free when they are born, but it feels like people from other countries are trying to make us similar to their countries. Or otherwise it feels like our own people aren't being taught right. I'd like to make it clear that US Citizens aren't born in countries and that our citizenship to the US comes naturally, through the (natural god-given) right to freedom of choice (or liberty) that all people have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is your view, your opinion. That's not allowed on Wikipedia. As I said on my talk page, this is called synthesis - you're taking a couple of pieces of information and then drawing your own novel opinion / meaning. That's not what Wikipedia is about. You would need to find a legal scholar or law journal that discusses this, and lets be honest, this is not a majority view, it's not even a minority view. WP:FRINGE barely covers it. Expressing this in a blog post? All good. Expressing the idea here? Not good. Ravensfire (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

How are direct quotes drawing a novel meaning? "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" "all men are created equal with liberty" i'm literally not saying anything more than that. i'm not drawing any opinion or my own meanings: i'm handing you the actual quotes from the document itself. It is literally quoted that the assembly declared Fayette a natural born citizen and not by birth or parentage! That's not drawing my own conclusion! I'm not concluding anything. I'm citing the exact thing that they said! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk • contribs) 19:31, April 21, 2021 (UTC)

And then you are drawing a conclusion from those facts. That's WP:SYNTH. It's that simple. Until you bring a strong legal scholar or law journal that expresses the same opinions, this is going nowhere. Ravensfire (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

i'm asking you what conclusion i'm drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

None of this talk about the significance of the Declaration of Independence to natural-born citizenship is relevant to the "Natural-born-citizen clause" article unless it deals directly with eligibility under the Constitution to serve as President or Vice-President. The DoI doesn't say anything about US citizenship — natural-born or otherwise — or about eligibility to be President of the United States (these concepts did not exist in 1776). And even if it did, it is well settled in US jurisprudence that while the DoI may be useful to provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws, the DoI itself doesn't have the force of law, and nothing in the Constitution can be said to be invalid because of a conflict with the DoI. So, from my viewpoint, this entire argument over the connection (if any) between the natural-born-citizen clause and anything said in the DoI is off-topic.

Also, 151.196.126.78, you would be strongly advised to review the Wikipedia policy on edit warring (WP:EW). Repeatedly reinstating an edit which others have undone is a violation of WP:EW and can lead to your being blocked from editing. Note, in particular, the "three-revert rule" (WP:3RR), which prohibits more than three reverts on any single page within a 24-hour period — you came very close to violating the 3RR earlier today, and if you do it again now, you'll almost certainly end up being blocked for at least 24 hours. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

i'm not talking to you. i'm talking to somebody else on the talk page. please note that i am trying to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The talk page is not a forum to discuss the topic; it is to discuss how to improve the article. Various people have tried to explain to you why your proposed edits violate various Wikipedia policies. --Weazie (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

i'm not talking to you. i'm talking to somebody else on the talk page. please note that i am trying to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to get drawn into this. I've stopped myself from commenting a couple of times. However, despite that, 151.196.126.78, please see WP:REGISTER, WP:SIGN, and WP:TALK#USE; everyone, please see META:TROLL and WP:DENY. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

i have no interest in establishing a username or identity here. i'm trying to improve the this page by pointing out "the obvious" and directly noted fact that a natural born citizen is not born in a country or entitled to citizenship and recognition via parentage (as established with lafayette). there's no mention of the fact that people are naturally free of government, and equal in that regard, under nature's god, and that citizenship comes naturally. that is literally the definition of our country's belief's and i don't care how it's written on this page, as long as it's noted and accurate.

please stop trolling or trying to redirect attention into a namesake. i'm trying to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

With all possible respect, you may believe in good faith that you are trying to improve the article, but unless you can learn to follow the ground rules and core principles of Wikipedia, your attempts at improvement — however well-intentioned they may be — are unproductive and disruptive. "Improvement" to an article (see WP:IMPROVE) does not mean repeatedly adding something you insist is an obvious improvement and fighting others who question your changes; that sort of activity is known here as "edit warring" (see WP:EW) and is not permitted by Wikipedia's core policies.

And don't tell people that "I am not talking to you" — discussions on a Wikipedia article's talk page are a group endeavour, and anyone participating in the discussion has a right to contribute. If you really intend for a comment to be seen only by one specific person, you should write it on their personal talk page, or else send them a private e-mail message (though this latter option is available to you only if you are logged in and using an account; see WP:EMAIL). You may not feel that you are talking to me, but I am talking to you (and to everyone else participating in the ongoing effort to make genuine improvements to this article in accordance with Wikipedia standards).

Arguments claiming that such-and-so is "obvious" or a "directly noted fact" are explicitly not good enough for Wikipedia. Anything added to an article here needs to be tied to a "reliable, published source" (see WP:RS) — and in almost all cases, that needs to be a "secondary" source (see WP:PSTS) other than you, the Wikipedia contributor. You may be convinced that the DoI's language about divinely endowed, unalienable rights clearly and indisputably overrides whatever the Constitution's natural-born-citizen clause has to say about Presidential eligibility, but you can't say that in a Wikipedia article based on your insight alone, you need to find other published sources that discuss this part of the DoI and how it relates to the Constitution. And even if you mean your addition only as a general acknowledgment of the principle of unalienable rights as set forth in the DoI, that's still not good enough — unless what you say has a clear connection to the subject of the article (in this case, the natural-born-citizen clause in the context of eligibility to be the US President), it isn't relevant to this article and does not belong here.

For your own sake, as well as for the sake of others participating here, please don't make any more changes to this or any other Wikipedia article until you have carefully read the various policy statements which I and others have cited (via the links starting with "WP:"). If you doggedly refuse to conform your behaviour to Wikipedia's established rules, even after multiple people have pointed these out to you, and continue to exhibit a lack of willingness to work collaboratively, you are likely to find yourself blocked from editing this or any other article, and we (readers and other editors) will be deprived of any useful contributions you might have made if you had only been willing to work within the community. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

i was told to talk here, so the person could boost their namesake. they refused to talk to me on their or my talk page. i've repeatedly said that i don't care how it's worded or who writes it in. please stop flooding this page and trying to change topics. i never said anything about the doi overriding anything. you are fabricating information, flooding the topic and trying to redirect. i'll repeat myself: those are direct quotes that talk, directly, about our equality at birth and "nature's god." those are the direct quotes that founded the country. i'm not trying to add anything in. i'm trying to note the quotes or to have somebody note them and to highlight that lafayette was not born in the country, does not have the parentage, and is indeed a natural born citizen. YOU are the one(s) that said that is obvious. you are contradicting yourself. so please, stop trolling and help me to improve the article.

these are the documents that define our country. it isn't right to talk about "natural rights and nature's god" on page 1 and then scream "BUT THERE'S NO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING NATURAL ON PAGE 2! PAGE 1 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PAGE 2! PAGE 1 HAS NO INFLUENCE! IT'S MEANINGLESS AND PAGE 2 CAN BE INTERPRETED ONLY WITHOUT CONTEXT"

if you wish to talk to me on my talk page, then do so. if you wish for me to speak to you here. then i will. i will not hold a forum and i have no interest in developing a namesake. please stop trolling and help me to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

nevermind this is a waste of time. you are all too busy with your soap box. forget i mentioned it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP user who has been repeatedly trying to include mention of a "natural" concept of citizenship, based on his/her reading of what the Declaration of Independence "obviously" says, has deleted the entire section from this talk page dealing with his views and with other people's objections. In my view, this action violates WP:TPO (regarding deletion of other people's comments on a talk page) and WP:REDACT (regarding deletion of one's own talk page comments after others have replied to them). I will not restore the material in question, in the interests of staying cool (see WP:CALM), but if someone else wishes to do so, I will not object. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind restoring it, and then hatting it. If only to note that the suggestion to include the Constitution's preamble (or DOI) was considered and rejected. --Weazie (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Restored and user warned. Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

i'm not trying to restore the material. i was told to talk here and the talk is concluded. i'm not trying to add anything to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk • contribs) 23:54, April 22, 2021 (UTC)

Please sign and indent your talk page posts, and please stop blanking talk page threads. Meters (talk)

i'm not trying to be noted. i was told to talk here and the talk is concluded. the talk page is filled with spam. i'm not trying to add anything to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk • contribs) 23:59, April 22, 2021 (UTC)

Again, please sign and indent your talk page posts. See WP:TPYES Meters (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

i began signing my posts and then you erased my signature. this is supposed to be about the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You added your signature, but you added it in the wrong place (after someone else's post). And by the time you did, Meters (talk · contribs) had already signed your comment for you. This time, I'd recommend you just let it go and not worry about it anymore — but if you do feel a need to post comments on talk pages in the future, please remember to "sign" each of your comments right away, with four tildes (~~~~). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Vattel yet again

As this article's archives indicate, attempts to inject Vattel into this article have been repeatedly rejected. Although consensus may change, nothing factual has changed.

Without a reliable source providing further illumination, that Franklin received copies of Vattel's book in 1775 is not relevant to what occurred at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. An editor's belief about such a connection would be improper original research, synthesis, or both. Both the 1760 translation and the 1787 Dublin translation do not contain the phrase "natural born citizen"; without further evidence, inferring how the Framers might have relied on Vattel and translated his work also is improper original research and synthesis. And Ramsey's article actually argues Blackstone influenced the Framers the most; it is cherrypicking to suggest that Ramsey believes otherwise.

That Vattel was cited in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott already is noted in the appropriate section of this article (interpretations by the courts in the 1800s); there's no need to repeat that fact. If there are further relevant citations to Vattel by the courts (or others), they should be added in the appropriate place; Vattel does not deserve his own coatrack. And a citation to Vattel for matters unrelated to the natural-born-citizen clause is not relevant to this article. --Weazie (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)