Keep It Simple Stupid - Article 2, Sec 1, Clause 5

Originally posted on Keep it simple stupid! | Natural Born Citizens and why some are ineligible to be POTUS. (petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com) On January 15th, 2015.

"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." September 4, 1787. [1]

The statement above is easily understandable, or is it?

In 2008 after receiving information about Obama being born to a Kenyan (British Subject) father, and possibly being born in Kenya, I thought “No way are they going to allow him to run for President”. I waited, and waited and then I found out that McCain was born in Panama. I was like “well he was born to a military Father in the Canal Zone he is good right”? I think that assumption by me was one that was held by many. Then the Congress agreed to SR 511[2] stating “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” and “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;” “Wait, so Congress wasn’t sure he was eligible so they had to create a non-binding Senate Resolution to make it so”? A resolution that was co-sponsored by the two Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton, who was at this point done in the polls losing to, Barack Obama whose natural born Citizenship status was in question. I won’t draw any conclusions for you, I am just here to present the facts. [edited: There were only 7 people that can be associated with SR 511. All were democrats except Coburn of Oklahoma who has admitted in public that Obama and he are good friends. Furthermore, there was not a recorded vote on the resolution so there is not a list to hold anyone accountable for this resolution being "unanimously approved".

After the obvious questionable nature of both candidates in 2008, here we are almost seven years later looking at the possibility of the Republicans trying to advance not one, but three potentially ineligible candidates in Senator Ted Cruz (Texas), Senator Marco Rubio (FL), and Gov. Bobby Jindal (La).

When I started my research, I read a lot of blogs, and opinion pieces, and looked at others research. President Obama had been elected once already and there didn’t seem like we could do anything. Then on April 27, 2011, while sitting around my house waiting to move to Japan, President Obama came on TV and presented his long form birth certificate. [3] Within hours there were videos of his BC showing that it had layers, and you could remove items from the PDF file. Knowing what I knew about computers and documentation this made me more intrigued about the subject of what a natural born Citizen was, and was I wrong in what I thought I had learned in school about the subject.

After my move with my wife to her new military assignment in Japan I was still unemployed. I used my free time between golfing and running kids around to do my own research on the subject. In this process I decided I would not lean on others’ opinions or assumptions. I wanted my findings to come from verifiable information via trustworthy sites.

The more I researched this subject the more I have come to realize that what I thought was a remarkably simple and understandable statement was very confusing to most. Everyone seemed to have thoughts on the subject, and you are more likely to find that no one agrees on what it means than you will those that do. With that in mind I intensified my research to try and educate the masses.

I am not a lawyer, never have and never will be. Something to keep in mind about the Constitution though is that it was written so the people of the newly formed republic could understand its words and meanings, any laymen should be able to read it with no problems. The issue we have is that some terms with time have become vague to the laymen of today. Just like the word gay to someone from the 1920’s is not the same as it to someone in 2015. One means happy, and the other describes a person’s sexual orientation so I see how people could see the term different than what the founders intended.

What I am though, is someone who worked on complex aircraft avionics for eighteen of my almost twenty-three years in the Air Force. I like to think that my analytical troubleshooting skills are rather good. Give me a problem, and I will always look at it analytically even if it seems to be a simple fix! I am also a student of history and just like any good student I’m willing to research and learn. The number one rule I learned in the military is KISS or keep it simple stupid!

On any aircraft there are times you come across a problem in a technical manual, and you and other co-workers may not agree on how to interpret the issue. When that happens you move up the chain to find someone who can clarify what you, and your co-worker do not agree on. Sometimes one or the other is correct, sometimes neither, because you didn’t take into consideration a different factor. There are times when you can’t get a consensus on what the intent of the person who wrote the paragraph, or diagram meant, and you are forced to contact the author on what their intent was. In the case of the natural born Citizenship clause in Art II Section I Clause 5, [4] I have found this to be the solution.

Since all the founders are long since gone, I started with a simple google search for the term, again that lead me to the many blogs, and opinion commentary that I had already read. Since some had done some of the research already, and had links to sites, I used that as a starting point.

The main argument that I found was whether the term was from English Common Law or Vattel, so I investigated this avenue.

I noticed that nowhere in English common law is the term natural born Citizen mentioned. The articles supporting this argument for this always say that natural born Subject and natural born Citizen are the same. Let’s look at the words subject, citizen. From Merriam-Webster. [5]

Subject: one that is placed under authority or control: as

b (1): one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's law (2): one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state

Citizen:

1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially: one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

2: a: a member of a state

b: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it.

3: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state

The terms are similar but, yet different. I began to think maybe I was wrong, but then I started thinking, “Why did the founders use the term Citizen and not subject?” They had just fought a war to break away from England and being subjects. With the Declaration of Independence [6] they had started their new nation. The term Citizen is in there only once, and it is as quoted, and it is in reference to them being citizens. “HE has constrained our Fellow-Citizens, taken Captive on the high Seas, to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.” The word subject is in the Declaration of Independence once, and it is in reference to the King of England and what he had done. “HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”

Digging a little more I found that there is only one Law book from the time of the drafting of the Constitution that has the term natural born Citizen defined in those exact words. This can be found in Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations or The Principals of Natural Law (1758) [7] Book 1 Chapter 19 you will find this paragraph.

§ 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 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. Emphasis mine

Now that I found the actual words together, I ran into another problem. This book was in French and that sentence as I show translated was not put in to print in English till 1797 almost 10 years after the Constitutional Convention! I thought that I may have hit another dead end, but then I learned that French was the language of treaties of the day and that many of the founders were fluent in French as well. In the original text natives, or natural-born were Naturels or Indigenies. Many have said that naturels as translated in the version of 1797 was not a term known to the founders at the time of the Convention. I found that not to be the case. In the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 27 July 1781[8] you will find “A memorial from the honable the Minister of France” was read. In the translation you will find the word naturels translated to natural born almost six years prior to the adoption of the Constitution. edited Note: The translated text of this treaty was done by Charles Thomson who was the Secretary of the United Colonies Continental Congress September 5, 1774 - July 1, 1776 Secretary of the United States Continental Congress July 2, 1776 - February 28, 1781 United States in Congress Assembled Secretary March 1, 1781 - March 3, 1788 which puts him in the Continental Congress with John Jay and George Washington and translating French text if not for just him but for the Continental Congress as a whole. http://www.charlesthomson.com/
Edit: On Oct 18th, 2024, a copy of the Constitution sent to the states for ratification signed by Thomson was sold for $9 Million dollars. Some would say that Thomson was a nobody, but was he? A rare copy of the US Constitution sells for $9 million at auction | AP News

Okay we know that the founders were familiar with French, and the term naturels had been translated to natural born, now the question is did the founders even know that this book existed? In this letter from Benjamin Franklin to Charles William Frederic Dumas dated 9 December 1775[9] it looks to be so.” I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.” emphasis mine

Another point of contention is that the in the original text the word citizens is not there. Again, I was hit with another question. Does the fact that the word citizen was not in the sentence change the intent of the sentence? Section 212 is in reference to citizens. Here it is the sentence in English minus citizen. The natives, or natural-born, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Even though the word is not there the sentence is contained within a paragraph in which it is describing citizens. If it were not within that paragraph or the paragraph was titled subjects I could understand the question, but it isn’t.

With the book in the hands of the members of Congress, who were the members of, and which Congress would that be? Well in 1775 the Continental Congress was meeting. Here is a list of those delegates.

New Hampshire:	John Sullivan, Nathaniel Folsom
Massachusetts Bay:	John Adams, Samuel Adams, Thomas Cushing, Robert Treat Paine
Rhode Island:	Stephen Hopkins, Samuel Ward
Connecticut:	Eliphalet Dyer, Roger Sherman, Silas Deane
New York:	Isaac Low, John Alsop, *John Jay*, Philip Livingston, James Duane, William Floyd, Henry Wisner, Simon Boerum
New Jersey:	James Kinsey, William Livingston, Stephen Crane, Richard Smith, John De Hart
Pennsylvania:	Joseph Galloway, John Dickinson, Charles Humphreys, Thomas Miffin, Edward Biddle, John Morton, George Ross
Delaware:	Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean, George Read
Maryland:	Matthew Tilghman, Thomas Johnson, William Paca, Samuel Chase, Robert Goldsborough
Virginia:	Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, *George Washington*, Patrick Henry, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison, Edmund Pendleton
North Carolina:	William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, Richard Caswell
South Carolina:	Henry Middleton, Thomas Lynch, Jr., Christopher Gadsden, John Rutledge, Edward Rutledge

Among those members were two that are vital to this discussion. Those two people are John Jay [10] and George Washington [11]. Now most of us are remarkably familiar with George Washington and the fact he was the first President of the United States, but even on the page I have linked it does not mention that he was part of the First Continental Congress along with John Jay, or even that he was the President of the Constitutional Convention. These two and the early history of our country are intertwined in many ways. Not only were they members of the first Congress, but Washington would also name Jay to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

As I previously identified Vattel’s work was in the hands of these two gentlemen and in Mr. Franklin’s words “It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.”

Was Vattel influential in the early days of our country? From Grotain Society Papers 1972 Studies in the history of the law of nations [16], p.178“ In the United States, it was said: At the time of the American Revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular, if not the most authoritative, of the continental writers. Citations of Grotius, Pufendorf, and Vattel are scattered in about equal measures in the writings of the time. Possibly, after the Revolution Vattel is cited more frequently than his predecessors.” Jesse Reeves, “The influence of the Law of Nature upon International Law in the United States”, in Vol. III, American Journal of International Law (Washington, 1909), p. 549.

Up to this point I have shown the one, and only reference to a natural born Citizen in any law book of the day, and that the founders were familiar with Vattel and his work, having had the book at their disposal for more than a decade. I have shown that the term was used by one of the founding fathers in reference to the requirement in a letter to another founding father who was not only part of the 1^st Continental Congress, but was the President of the Constitutional Convention, and that the wording from the letter was used in the Constitution.

In 1787 with George Washington as the President of the Constitutional Convention [12] a group of the founding fathers sat from 14 May till 15 September to initially address the Articles of Confederation, but eventually the drafting of the Constitution of the United States.

John Jay along with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were among the founding fathers that were not in attendance at the Constitutional Convention. Jay had been one of the most influential proponents of the Convention having written letters to both Jefferson and Washington on this idea. It is suggested that Hamilton and Jay being Federalists that only Hamilton was acceptable to the antifederalist legislature of New York and selected to be a delegate. Two other delegates were also appointed as well but later they both returned when they did not agree with the drafting of a whole new Constitution. Even though Jay was not in attendance he let his concerns and opinions in what was being discussed be known to those at the convention. He advocated for ideas enclosed in the Randolph Plan [13], and even wrote to George Washington. In one of those letters is a term at this point you should be familiar with. On July 25, 1787, John Jay penned a letter [14] to George Washington which included the following. “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” In the notes of the Convention there is discussion of age and residence, but not on Citizenship status. On the 4^th of September without discussion the Presidential requirements are approved to the Constitution. How John Jay knew about the requirements for the President is all subject to speculation because there is no evidence other than circumstantial.

Here is what I have as my circumstantial evidence. Alexander Hamilton had advocated for John Jay to be a representative of New York with both being Federalists. Hamilton also made many trips back to New York during the Convention. There is a possibility he was sharing information with Jay on those trips. As I said this is just speculation, but how would Jay know if someone wasn’t passing him information? Also, in the response letter to Jay, Washington apologized for not coming to visit during one of the breaks. Was it Hamilton or even Washington who was passing him information?

After the convention, and before the ratification of the Constitution, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison together penned The Federalist, or more popularly known as The Federalist Papers [15], where they articulated to the people of New York why they should support the ratification of the Constitution. Of the five papers attributed to Jay four of them, Federalists 2-5 “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence” were on foreign influence.

Now let us address some of the post-convention questions. Let us address the term Founders. The listing below lists all the people that attended at least one if not more of the listed events.

276 different men taken part in one or more of either the following events, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional Convention, and the 1^st and 3rd Congresses.

Fifty-six people were at the Declaration of Independence. Forty-six attended this only, six attended the Constitutional Convention, four of those attended the 1^st Congress and two attended the 3^rd Congress as well.

Fifty-five people were at the Constitutional convention. Thirty-four Attended this only, eighteen attended the 1^st Congress, and nine of those attended the 3^rd Congress as well.

Ninety-three people were at the 1^st Congress including replacements. Forty-two attended this only. Thirty-nine attended the 3^rd Congress as well.

142 people were at the 3^rd Congress including replacements. One hundred attended this only.

Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, and George Wythe of Virginia were at The Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention.

Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George Clymer of Pennsylvania were at The Declaration of Independence, The Constitutional Convention, and the First Congress.

George Read of Delaware was at The Declaration of Independence, and the First and Third Congresses.

Robert Morris of Pennsylvania and Richard Sherman of Connecticut were the only people that were at The Declaration of Independence, The Constitutional Convention, and the 1st and 3rd Congresses.

Charles Carroll of Maryland, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, and William Floyd were at the Declaration of Independence and the First Congress.

Footnotes: Constitutional Convention attendees

1. Rules Committee-Proposed and appointed May 25, to set rules for the convention
2. First Committee of Eleven-Proposed and appointed July 2, on the question of equal representation in the Senate
3. Committee of Detail Proposed July 23, members appointed July 24, to create a constitution containing all issues agreed to by the convention Result: August 6 Draft
4. Second Committee of Eleven Proposed and appointed August 25, to consider issues concerning uniform duties and fees

5. Third Committee of Eleven Proposed and appointed August 31, to address tabled issues and committee reports not yet acted upon

6. Committee of Style and Arrangement Proposed and appointed September 8, to revise the style and arrangement of the Constitution Result: September 12 Draft

The term founders are usually used without definition. The term is used in a general sense and encompasses a large number of people, of which some we are more familiar with, and some are not. I think the term is used too loosely and that when making claims about who and what the founders might or might not have done you should be specific as to who you are claiming was a founder.

The First Congress had a lot of items to deal with. They had to set up all the items they were charged with being responsible for and set up our government from scratch. One of these is another area in which the term natural born Citizen is a part of. Keep in mind that none of the people that I have tied to the phrase in the Constitution were a part of the first Congress. Hamilton would be named the first Secretary of the Treasury, John Jay the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and of course George Washington the first President of the United States.

One of the enumerated powers of Congress under Art 1, Section 8, Clause 4 is: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

When you see this act discussed on most posts they will tout the Act of 1790 because of its wording, but they fail to tell you that in 1795 it was repealed and replaced and the words natural born Citizen would never be seen in any immigration statue put forward by Congress ever again.

With this charge they set about discussing what would be in this act. You can read the discussion yourself if you like. [17] The discussion amongst the House of Representatives lead to that Uniform Rules of Naturalization Act of 1790. If you have read the discussion, you will notice that only one of the members of the Constitutional Convention is recorded as having made a comment on this act. That same person would be the only one to make comments during the discussion on the Act of 1795[18] as well. Here are the first words by that man, James Madison on the subject. “Mr. Madison. -When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautious necessary to guard against abuses.”

When looking at the words of the Act of 1790[19] and the Act of 1795[20] together I noticed two things. One there is a significant increase in the number of words in the later act, and the term natural born Citizen was removed. I have shown the sentence in question in the Act of 1790 and the corresponding sentence that replaced it in the Act of 1795 for you to compare.

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Oh my, there it says it! All citizen at birth and natural born Citizens are the same thing! Well let us think about this for a second or two. It doesn’t say that because he is a citizen at birth, he is a natural born Citizen. It says he is a natural born Citizen because he is born to naturalized Citizens within the jurisdiction of the United States and that makes him a Citizen at birth.

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

For carrying into complete effect, the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: --

First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.

Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted That the Act in titled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

Again, as with the Constitution, there is no discussion in the record of Congress as to how, or why the term was put in there in the first place, or why it was removed in the second act. (Edit) I have found the following by James Madison to Thomas Jefferson Jan 11 1794. A point of interest is that the Act of 1795 was the only major legislation that Madison sponsored in this Congress.

Dear Sir,

The last subject before the H. of Reps. was a Bill revising the Naturalization law, which from its defects & the progres of things in Europe was exposing us to very serious inconveniences. The Bill requires 1. A probationary residence of 5 instead of 2 years, with a formal declaration on oath of the intention 3 years at least prior to the admission. 2. an oat of abjuration, as well as of allegiance. 3. proof of good character, attachment to the principles of our Government, and of being well disposed to the good order & happiness of the U.S. 4. Where the candidate has borne any title or been of any order of Nobility, his is to renounce both on record. This last raised some doust. The eastern members were weak eno' to oppose it: and Dexter as a setoff moved a correspondent clog on emigrants attached to slaveholding.

Thanks again to the founding fathers for leaving more questions! Before moving on though, remember that Congress is limited to the process of Naturalization [21] which according to Merriam-Webster is defined below.

Naturalize: to confer the rights of a national on; especially: to admit to citizenship

Congress can set up a process by which aliens can become citizens, not define the term citizen.

Moving on to the next topic that comes up on this discussion, the 14^th Amendment makes everyone born in the United States a natural born Citizen is the claim. The 14^th Amendment [22] was one of the civil war amendments and section one set about to recognize that everyone born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States was a citizen and that states could not inhibit that.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nowhere in the 14^th Amendment does it redefine the term natural born Citizen, or Citizen for that matter, it shows who can be Citizens. To reiterate this point the primary framer of this Amendment Rep. John Bingham, on more than one occasion, on the floor of the House of Representatives said what the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen was. On page 2791[23] of “The Congressional Globe, Volume 66” part 4 you will find these words: “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” The date of this was 25 April 1872, a little more than eighty-five years after the adoption of the Constitution.

To best illustrate this, I will use a diagram that I created. A child born in the United States has a natural allegiance to his home. His parents if they are both U.S. Citizens before the child’s birth, have by birth or oath declared their allegiance to the United States and by natural law pass that to their Children. This child has no other Allegiance to any other nation or state. This a natural born Citizen

A child born in the United States to immigrant parents (This diagram depicts Vivek Ramaswamy, Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley) would not only have allegiance to his home, but thru his parents’ allegiance and Citizenship to the country of his parents. Parents that have not proved a citizenship in the United States have not agreed to the allegiance to the country of the birth of their child, and it is not guaranteed that they ever will. This child is a citizen at birth of the United States but is also a citizen at birth of India. How does this ensure the Jays hint to George Washington of “whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government”? If you switch out the flag of India for the Flag of Cuba, you will show the citizenship situation of Marco Rubio. (Edited 7/16/23 adding Vivek Ramaswamy to the list)

Now add in being born in another country! A child born abroad now has one more Citizenship to deal with along with a foreign-born father. Now you have a child that is not only a citizen at birth of the United States, but they are also a Citizen at birth of Canada, and a Citizen at birth of Cuba.

Below is the Citizenship situation of Ted Cruz. Senator Cruz did not even know he was a Canadian Citizen until 2013 and then finally in 2014 he finally renounced that Citizenship. When Senator Cruz was born the citizenship statutes in Canada made him a natural Born Citizen of Canada [24] As of January 2015 currently he hasn't addressed the fact that he is still considered a Cuban Citizen. [25] This issue also applies to Marco Rubio who was born in the United States to two Cuban Citizens.

EDIT/UPDATE 4 June 2023:
It has come to my attention that Ron DeSantis as well is not a natural born Citizen. His mother Karen Rogers who grew up in Poland and didn't become a U.S. citizen until 1983 five years after Ron was born in 1978. The article is confusing because it says that she was a citizen at birth but also says she didn't become a citizen till 1983. Did she renounce her citizenship, was she born in the U.S. but took Polish citizenship at some point? [26]