A natural born citizen can mean anything Congress wants it to—and here's the proof

[jmyrlefuller]

While surfing around Wikipedia today, I came across an article describing honorary citizens of the United States. There was a note on Gilbert du Motier, better known as the Marquis de Lafayette. In it, the article noted (with sources, so I'm not just grasping at some Internet vandal's random screed):

"On 28 December 1784, the Maryland General Assembly passed a resolution stating that Lafayette and his male heirs ‘forever shall be...natural born Citizens’ of the state. This made him a natural-born citizen of the United States under the Articles of Confederation and as defined in Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution."

Even though the Marquis was not born in Maryland, nor did he have any reason to be considered a citizen of the colony at the time he was born, by act of that state's legislature, they simply could define him as a "natural-born citizen." In other words, the status of natural-born citizenship is simply an issue of whoever Congress (who gained authority over immigration and citizenship issues when the Constitution was ratified) wants to define as natural-born citizens. They don't even have to be born citizens, technically speaking, as the Marquis's case demonstrates.

As Congress already bestows citizenship at birth to those born to American citizens, and has the authority to do so, there is no reason to assume this would not be natural-born citizenship.

[truth_seeker]

While surfing around Wikipedia today, I came across an article describing honorary citizens of the United States. There was a note on Gilbert du Motier, better known as the Marquis de Lafayette. In it, the article noted (with sources, so I'm not just grasping at some Internet vandal's random screed):

"On 28 December 1784, the Maryland General Assembly passed a resolution stating that Lafayette and his male heirs ‘forever shall be...natural born Citizens’ of the state. This made him a natural-born citizen of the United States under the Articles of Confederation and as defined in Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution."

Even though the Marquis was not born in Maryland, nor did he have any reason to be considered a citizen of the colony at the time he was born, by act of that state's legislature, they simply could define him as a "natural-born citizen." In other words, the status of natural-born citizenship is simply an issue of whoever Congress (who gained authority over immigration and citizenship issues when the Constitution was ratified) wants to define as natural-born citizens. They don't even have to be born citizens, technically speaking, as the Marquis's case demonstrates.

As Congress already bestows citizenship at birth to those born to American citizens, and has the authority to do so, there is no reason to assume this would not be natural-born citizenship.

Hardly a legal precedent since Lafayette didn't run for President. And it was a state legislature, not Congress.

Your next research project is to determine if any other state legislatures have awarded NBC and when, to whom. And whether the US Congress has done likewise, when and whom.

Etc. We already know that there is no legal precedent of a President born outside of the US, although McCain ran based on a US Congress approved bill.

[Bill Cipher]

Hardly a legal precedent since Lafayette didn't run for President. And it was a state legislature, not Congress.

Your next research project is to determine if any other state legislatures have awarded NBC and when, to whom. And whether the US Congress has done likewise, when and whom.

Etc. We already know that there is no legal precedent of a President born outside of the US, although McCain ran based on a US Congress approved bill.

Why are you being so rude to him?  Me you can be rude to, because I'm a sonofabitch.  But you really shouldn't be rude to jmyrlefuller.

[jmyrlefuller]

Hardly a legal precedent since Lafayette didn't run for President. And it was a state legislature, not Congress.

Your next research project is to determine if any other state legislatures have awarded NBC and when, to whom. And whether the US Congress has done likewise, when and whom.

Etc. We already know that there is no legal precedent of a President born outside of the US, although McCain ran based on a US Congress approved bill.

Congress, as we know it, did not exist in 1784. The U.S. was still a loose confederation of states, with the Continental Congress having some limited authority over certain issues. By and large, citizenship was still determined by the states. When the Constitution was adopted, Congress assumed that power.

My point is to prove precedent: at the time the phrase "natural born citizen" was incorporated into the Constitution, it was a term that those in charge of determining citizenship could define any way they so pleased, and there was a case, just four years before it was implemented, where a foreign-born national was bestowed the specific status of "natural born citizen," solely by legislative act. There is no inherent meaning to it as some birthers have claimed.

[MACVSOG68]

Hardly a legal precedent since Lafayette didn't run for President. And it was a state legislature, not Congress.

Your next research project is to determine if any other state legislatures have awarded NBC and when, to whom. And whether the US Congress has done likewise, when and whom.

Etc. We already know that there is no legal precedent of a President born outside of the US, although McCain ran based on a US Congress approved bill.

Actually records from Massachusetts reflect usage of the terms 'natural born subject' and 'natural born citizen' interchangeably to describe births in that state at least up until 1800.  And the first naturalization act identified births outside the US of US citizens as being 'as natural born citizens'.  A lengthy legal brief provided the basis for the McCain decision.