Analysis of Natural-Born Citizenship
Dian Egbueje
Founder of DMThis Outfitters | Transforming Corporate Culture through Fashion | Empowering Organizations with Workshops, Image Consulting & Sustainable Style
The debate surrounding the definition of who in the United States can be considered a "natural-born citizen" has intensified with the National Federal Republic Amendment (NFRA) proposing a stricter interpretation. This article critically examines the NFRA's definition and its implications, highlighting inconsistencies, historical context, and constitutional interpretations.
Introduction to the Natural-Born Citizenship Debate:
In the United States, the requirements for presidential eligibility are outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. This clause stipulates that:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States".
The Qualifications Clause set forth in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 thus requires the President to be:
Although the constitutional provision is clear on its requirements, it doesn't offer any definitions as to who is or what qualifies a "natural-born citizen".
1. Clarifying Definitions of Natural-Born Citizen:
This term typically refers to someone who acquires citizenship automatically at birth, usually because they were born on the country’s soil (jus soli) or born to parents who are citizens of that country (jus sanguinis).
For example, in the United States, a natural-born citizen is someone who is either born on U.S. soil or born to (at least one) U.S. citizen parents, regardless of where they are born (See reference 1). This distinction is significant, especially regarding eligibility for certain offices, like the U.S. presidency, where only natural-born citizens are eligible.
The NFRA defines "Natural Born Citizen" as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth (see reference 2). The NFRA's definition of "natural-born citizen" raises concerns and differs from the popular and accepted US position by potentially distinguishing between individuals born in the U.S. to (both) American parents versus those born abroad to at least one American citizen parent.
2. Legal Precedents and Their Impact:
Key Supreme Court cases have shaped the understanding of citizenship, including Dred Scott v. Sandford and United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark is particularly relevant, as it affirmed that individuals born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. The NFRA's stricter definition seems to contradict this precedent by potentially excluding some individuals who might historically be considered natural-born citizens.
3. Historical Figures and Their Relevance:
Historical examples, such as Chester A. Arthur and Thomas Jefferson, (all past republican presidents) and many other past presidents illustrate inconsistencies in the interpretation of natural-born citizenship. Arthur, born to Irish parents, and Jefferson, born to a colonial family, exemplify how historical interpretations have varied. However, these examples should be analyzed in the context of their time and how they fit with current legal standards. The NFRA's position seems to overlook these historical precedents.
4. Addressing Counterarguments:
Supporters of the NFRA’s stricter definition might argue that it ensures a clear and uniform standard for citizenship that secures the seat of the presidency from adverse external interference.
Futhermore, The repeal of the Naturalization Act of 1790 and its replacement without the “natural-born” language suggests an intention to distinguish between natural-born citizens and those born abroad to at least one American citizen parent. This distinction is supported by the 14th Amendment, which groups citizens born with at least one American citizen parent with those born on U.S. soil, but does not explicitly differentiate between the two.
However, it remains debatable why it matters whether a natural-born citizen has one American citizen parent or both. The NFRA’s position may also overlook the fact that a person meeting their definition of natural-born citizen might have parents who are not natural-born citizens themselves.
6. Addressing criticism of the Significance of Citizenship Status of Parents:
The question is whether it matters if a natural-born citizen has one American parent or both While the NFRA's definition focuses on the citizenship of parents, the Constitution’s 14th Amendment broadly defines citizenship without making such distinctions. A detailed examination is needed to understand why this differentiation matters and how it impacts legal and political discourse.
Secondly, the NFRA's strict definition may inadvertently suggest that individuals meeting its criteria might have parents who are not natural-born citizens themselves, which contradicts any underlying reasoning for such a strict position in the first place. Thus, such strict assertions could be misleading as the NFRA’s definition does not explicitly address the parents' citizenship status beyond the requirement that they be U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.
7. Constitutional and Legal Interpretations:
The 14th Amendment's provision that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens is crucial. This inclusive language suggests that the definition of natural-born citizenship should align with this broader interpretation.
A thorough examination of constitutional interpretations supports the idea that natural-born citizenship includes individuals born on U.S. soil and those born abroad to American parents.
8. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the NFRA’s proposed definition of natural-born citizenship raises significant questions and potential inconsistencies. While Kamala Harris’s status as a natural-born citizen is widely accepted under current interpretations, the NFRA's stricter criteria could create legal and historical conflicts. A clear and consistent understanding of natural-born citizenship is essential for maintaining legal clarity and upholding constitutional principles.
I hope this article was helpful. I am looking forward to reading your comments below.
REFRENCES:
Others: See also