• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Defining Natural-Born CitizenPage 1 of 6
Defining Natural-Born Citizen
By
P.A. Madison
on November 18, 2008
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” 
—George Mason
 
UPDATED 3/4/09
 What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S.Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative sourceto confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning whatthe phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of theFourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usualsuspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean
 Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born and yet not a native borncitizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born withinthe District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they weregenerally referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorialallegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powersreserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs,concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, andprosperity of the State.”Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of the “ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect. Early acts of Naturalization recognized theindividual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State.Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some onestate in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individualStates citizens of the United States.Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principlecriterion for establishing perpetual allegiance and citizenship. After independence each State wasfree to establish their own maxims on the subject. James Madison’s own State of Virginia adopted abirthright law authored by Thomas Jefferson that recognized parentage (citizenship of father) indetermining citizenship of the child, as well as recognizing the right of expatriation - somethingunheard of under the common law. States that were slow in enacting laws over acquiring citizenshipthrough birth forced courts to adjudicate citizenship disputes under common law rules.
 
Defining Natural-Born CitizenPage 2 of 6
Congress was vested only with the power to make
uniform rules
of naturalization in order toremove alienage from those who were already born abroad (outside of the States) who hadimmigrated to any one of the individual States. The best Congress could do is declare children bornabroad to fathers who were already a citizen of some State to be a citizen themselves. In otherwords, naturalization only provides for the removal of alienage and not for the creation of citizenswithin individual States.Additionally, if the framers merely intended for birth alone on U.S. soil, or understood birth alonebestowing unconditional citizenship to anyone, then all would had been necessary was to say thePresident shall be “native born.” But whether someone might just be native born or born a citizenonly State law or custom could determine.Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the foundersconsidered improper and dangerous.Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “memberof the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another societywithout the consent of that person. The reason? Because “
 he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.
”The powers of the general government were limited and defined, preventing Congress fromexercising the same kind of sovereignty that Britain had over its claimed dominions withinestablished States of the Union.Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance.Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never besevered or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” duefrom birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simplyperpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-bornsubject” in June of 1812.Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vesselsblockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leavingwas boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens whowere found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of theBritish Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.
Fourteenth Amendment
 Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, theadoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time wehave a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be
 
Defining Natural-Born CitizenPage 3 of 6
born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - acondition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rulesbecause it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, ashere employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States,whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, thesame jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with RadicalRepublicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word“jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute andcomplete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of thisamendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United Statesexercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operationsince citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time theydo the United States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances. In fact, Congress issued a jointcongressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “
United States have not recognized a double allegiance.
”Just as a person cannot be naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States whileowing allegiance to another nation, neither can anyone born. Why would “
subject to the jurisdictionthereof 
” be any different with persons born since this jurisdiction equally applies to persons born ornaturalized?
 In other words, the words do not exempt persons born from the same allegiancerequirements of persons naturalized 
.It is worth noting that wives and children were never naturalized separately but became naturalizedthrough the father/husband.Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to any other nation, andbecause the nation does not recognize double allegiances that can be created at common law,narrows the possibilities to what “natural-born citizen” can mean.
Natural-Born Citizen Defined
 One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one whois a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization forexample), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-borncitizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...