Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3891

I really don't enjoy debating Birthers over their imaginative definition of "natural born citizen." As with myriad other areas of pseudo-law, they've become wedded to their preferred legal perspective, and no amount of citation or precedent will sway them. You see the same phenomenon with flag-fringers, or tax protesters, or sovereign citizens.

Still, it's helpful to arm oneself in order to prevent a susceptible person from falling victim to Birtherism, and I feel that our strongest weapon in that fight is something that the Birthers cannot reproduce: validating expert opinion. If the Birther definition of "natural born citizen" had even an iota of legal support, they'd be able to cite lawyers or professors who support their view. But they never do. And they don't because they can't.

And so, I'd like to collect in one place all the quoteworthy examples of legal experts rejecting the Birther definition, and affirming that to be native-born is to be natural-born.

I'll start us off:

Thomas Goldstein, founder of the Scotusblog.com

Quote:

"The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you're a natural born citizen," said Thomas Goldstein, founder of the Scotusblog.com Web site and a lawyer who has argued numerous cases before the high court. "And that is particularly true in this case, when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama's mother."

Ronald Rotunda, Chapman University School of Law

Quote:

In a series of cases, the court has said that if you're born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction, you're a citizen. And subject to the jurisdiction doesn't mean subject to allegiance. It's subject to jurisdiction--that is, you're here, they can control you. Now the people that aren't subject to our jurisdiction, the court said in the old cases, are foreign embassy personnel, they've got diplomatic immunity and so on. So that the wife of the Russian ambassador--her kid, even if it's born in a New York hospital, or a DC hospital, isn't a US citizen. And the other category they had was an invading army, a marauding army comes in and has babies, they're not citizens, they're not subject to our jurisdiction, they're fighting us. And then also they talked about American Indians because they had treaties with them, they were called domestic dependent nations and we had treaties with them and then Congress gave them all citizenship by statute.

And the court has said you just can't take away citizenship unless you procured it by fraud. So it doesn't matter that only one of the people is an American citizen, I guess the mother and not the father. In fact, if they're born in the United States, like Hawaii, then it doesn't matter that either one is not a citizen.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:25 pm

Does Rotunda's opinion count? He wears those Bozo the Clown outfits with spinning bowties when he testifies.

raicha · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:33 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Does Rotunda's opinion count? He wears those Bozo the Clown outfits with spinning bowties when he testifies.

We take our experts as we find them.

June bug · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:58 pm

raicha wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Does Rotunda's opinion count? He wears those Bozo the Clown outfits with spinning bowties when he testifies.

We take our experts as we find them.

"As you know, you go to war court with the Army experts you have, not the Army experts you might want or wish to have at a later time."

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23531

June bug wrote:

raicha wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Does Rotunda's opinion count? He wears those Bozo the Clown outfits with spinning bowties when he testifies.

We take our experts as we find them.

"As you know, you go to war court with the Army experts you have, not the Army experts you might want or wish to have at a later time."

I this case that may be true, as they are not hired, as is the norm.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:19 pm

Ballantine posted at Doc's blog a compilation of sources he found by searching Google books that lists many sources that equated NBC with either born in the United States or native born citizen.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/ ... ment-72190

Quote:

The PTA magazine: Volume 48
National Congress of Parents and Teachers – 1953 – Snippet view
The President must be thirty-five years of age. born in the United States, and fourteen years a resident within the United States. 32. He is commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, grants pardons, calls extra sessions of Congress, …

Civics for citizens
Stanley Ellwood Dimond, Elmer F. Pflieger – 1965 – 636 pages – Snippet view
A natural-born citizen is one born in the United States or in one of its possessions. It is generally believed that a person born in a foreign country whose parents were American citizens could become President, but this issue …

The American Constitution
Charles Herman Pritchett – 1968 – 840 pages – Snippet view
Every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen and, of course, a natural-born citizen.

The American review
Johns Hopkins University. Bologna Center. European Center of American Studies – 1960 – Snippet view
The Constitutional qualifications for President are astonishingly simple: he must be born in the United States and be thirty-five years of age. These are the only qualifications: on all the other matters that have commanded so much …

…

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:48 pm

Well shit, Pilgrim. If the PTA says so, what else is there to say?

xKat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:06 pm **Posts:** 410

It is striking how many of those passage refer to "he" when talking of the qualifications for President. Even as recently as 1967 - the year I was born. It is amazing that just in my lifetime is the possibility of a woman President considered realistic or possible.

Quote:

Understanding American Government and politics
Samuel Steinberg – 1967 – 372 pages – Snippet view
Under the Constitution, the President must be a native-born citizen, at least 35 years of age at the time he takes office, and 14 years a resident of the United States. The residence requirement does not mean that a person must have …

verbalobe · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:55 pm

Even so, Ballantine obviously just cherry-picked all those quotes. Where are all the quotes from similar authorities attesting to the "common knowledge" "that we were all taught in grade school" that NBC means born in the land of citizen parents? Hunh? Right, he omitted them. The bias is so thick you could cut it with a knife. /snark

Seriously -- that is a great compilation. Thanks for cross-posting.

brygenon · **Joined:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm **Posts:** 425

Loren wrote:

Still, it's helpful to arm oneself in order to prevent a susceptible person from falling victim to Birtherism, and I feel that our strongest weapon in that fight is something that the Birthers cannot reproduce: validating expert opinion. If the Birther definition of "natural born citizen" had even an iota of legal support, they'd be able to cite lawyers or professors who support their view. But they never do. And they don't because they can't.

Early in my study of birtherism, I happened across an article in Slate that explained "natural born citizen" to lay audience thus:

The Constitution's rule that the president be "a natural born citizen" focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.

At the time I did not know who this Akhil Reed Amar guy was, but after Googling him up I decided to quote that bit a lot.

Perhaps interestingly, Mario Apuzzo cited Professor Amar's book America's Constitution: A Biography (ISBN-13: 978-1400062621) in his reply brief to the District Court and in his opening brief to the Circuit Court. The book explains, on page 164, that "natural born Citizen" means "a citizen at the time of birth." Of course attorney Apuzzo cited it on a different issue, but he did present the book as an authority.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10644

brygenon wrote:

Loren wrote:

Still, it's helpful to arm oneself in order to prevent a susceptible person from falling victim to Birtherism, and I feel that our strongest weapon in that fight is something that the Birthers cannot reproduce: validating expert opinion. If the Birther definition of "natural born citizen" had even an iota of legal support, they'd be able to cite lawyers or professors who support their view. But they never do. And they don't because they can't.

Early in my study of birtherism, I happened across an article in Slate that explained "natural born citizen" to lay audience thus:

The Constitution's rule that the president be "a natural born citizen" focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.

At the time I did not know who this Akhil Reed Amar guy was, but after Googling him up I decided to quote that bit a lot.

Perhaps interestingly, Mario Apuzzo cited Professor Amar's book America's Constitution: A Biography (ISBN-13: 978-1400062621) in his reply brief to the District Court and in his opening brief to the Circuit Court. The book explains, on page 164, that "natural born Citizen" means "a citizen at the time of birth." Of course attorney Apuzzo cited it on a different issue, but he did present the book as an authority.

That's interesting. Of course Mario probably misquoted his reference to it anyway.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:54 pm

Are there any authorities, other than de Vattel's writings, and a Supreme Court brief or two arguing the contrary, that state that to be a NBC you have to have 2 citizen parents (and, of course, be born in the USA)?

If so, in deference to balance we should cite them as well.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

elliewyatt · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:31 pm **Posts:** 2675

xKat wrote:

It is striking how many of those passage refer to "he" when talking of the qualifications for President. Even as recently as 1967 - the year I was born. It is amazing that just in my lifetime is the possibility of a woman President considered realistic or possible.

Quote:

Understanding American Government and politics
Samuel Steinberg – 1967 – 372 pages – Snippet view
Under the Constitution, the President must be a native-born citizen, at least 35 years of age at the time he takes office, and 14 years a resident of the United States. The residence requirement does not mean that a person must have …

Though I am bunches older than you (I was 16 in 1967), it jumped right out at me too.

But I'm not so sure about "the possibility of a woman President" not being considered "realistic or possible" at all. Five years later I cast my first vote (ya had to be 21 in them olden days) for Shirley Chisholm in the 1972 presidential primary election.

Quote:

Professing to be “unbossed and unbought,” Shirley Chisholm was the first black female major-party candidate for President of the United States, and the first black woman to be elected to Congress. Chisholm wasn’t intent on winning the presidency, but was steadfast on challenging conventions and showing Black America that they could aim high. She set the bar, in many ways, over which President Barack Obama jumped.
...

In 1964, Chisholm ran for and was elected to the New York State Legislature. Four years later, she ran as the Democratic candidate for New York’s 12th District congressional seat and was elected to the House of Representatives. As the first woman in Congress she hired an all-female staff.

Serving seven terms, Chisholm was an outspoken advocate for women, minorities, and the poor: she worked to improve opportunities for inner-city residents. She authored legislation that instituted a program called SEEK (Search for Education, Elevation, and Knowledge), which provided college funding to disadvantaged youth.

The pinnacle of Chisholm’s ascent occurred in 1972, when she became the first major-party black candidate for President of the United States, and the first female candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Chisholm won 152 votes at the 1972 Democratic National Convention, but lost.

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2530

brygenon wrote:

Loren wrote:

Early in my study of birtherism, I happened across an article in Slate that explained "natural born citizen" to lay audience thus:

The Constitution's rule that the president be "a natural born citizen" focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.

At the time I did not know who this Akhil Reed Amar guy was, but after Googling him up I decided to quote that bit a lot.

Somewhat poorly supported by legal precedent but it serves to get the message across. Under Wong Kim Ark it is all about when and where. At birth on soil. And what about those who are granted citizenship by statute at birth? Since Congress can only provide for uniform rules of naturalization, what does this make people who are granted citizenship under statute? Amar's position is at odds with the Supreme Court here.

brygenon · **Joined:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm **Posts:** 425

nbc wrote:

brygenon wrote:

Loren wrote:

Early in my study of birtherism, I happened across an article in Slate that explained "natural born citizen" to lay audience thus:

The Constitution's rule that the president be "a natural born citizen" focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.

At the time I did not know who this Akhil Reed Amar guy was, but after Googling him up I decided to quote that bit a lot.

Somewhat poorly supported by legal precedent but it serves to get the message across. Under Wong Kim Ark it is all about when and where. At birth on soil. And what about those who are granted citizenship by statute at birth? Since Congress can only provide for uniform rules of naturalization, what does this make people who are granted citizenship under statute? Amar's position is at odds with the Supreme Court here.

There are no Supreme Court cases on presidential eligibility, as birthers keep reminding us. This thread is about expert opinion. In his book, America's Constitution: A Biography (ISBN-13: 978-1400062621), Amar cites Jill Prior's 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, which is in on-line several places including:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9655857/Jill- ... rn-Citizen

Citizenship in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was all about birth on U.S. soil because, as Charles Gordon explains, "The question before the Court concerned children born in the United States, and it was not asked to pass on the status of children born abroad." That Wong was born in the U.S. was undisputed. The issue was whether, as the son of Chinese parents excluded from citizenship, he met the second prong of the 14'th Amendment test: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". See: ''Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma".
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/academics/ ... t/#archive

Gordon's paper is particularly interesting here under the Fogbow because a federal court cited it in an opinion on a birther case, albeit in a footnote in dicta. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California wrote:

Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, 'Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,' 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judg ... ing-on-MTD

Repeating NBC's questions:

nbc wrote:

And what about those who are granted citizenship by statute at birth? Since Congress can only provide for uniform rules of naturalization, what does this make people who are granted citizenship under statute?

John S. McCain III, the 2008 Republican nominee for President, was born in Panama and received U.S. citizenship by statute. I'm aware of one expert holding that McCain was not eligible: Gabriel J. Chin, who wrote a paper published by the Michigan Law Review arguing that John S. McCain is not eligible. Chin's thesis was:

Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articl ... itizenship

Even Chin seems to accept that a citizen from birth is a natural-born citizen. Chin's paper drew rebuttals in the literature of the field. Did any expert take the position that Chin did not go far enough, and even if the the statutes at the time made McCain a citizen at birth he would still be ineligible? I think not, but I've not read all the papers so I don't really know; let me know if I'm mistaken on that.

Markham Robinson petitioned the the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for a preliminary injunction to remove John McCain from the ballot on the grounds that McCain was not eligible [Robinson v. Bowen]. To rule on the motion, the Court assessed the likelihood of Robinson winning on the merits:

At the time of Senator McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 206145/39/

The Court accepted that citizenship from the time of birth is natural-born citizenship, and went even farther by allowing that Congress could grant citizenship from birth retroactively. That's a district court ruling on a preliminary injunction for "drastic remedy"; nevertheless, it is a real court addressing the question actually at issue. The judiciary has shown little interest in adjudicating the merits of Article II eligibility challenges, so that may be as close to a definitive court ruling as we ever get.

I happen to have these citation at the ready because of a recent and far-too-long thread on Dr. C's site.

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3891

Laurence Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, and Theodore Olson, former U.S. Assistant Attorney General and Solicitor General

Quote:

“These sources all confirm that the phrase ‘’natural born’’ includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance.”

ballantine · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm **Posts:** 372

Reality Check wrote:

Ballantine posted at Doc's blog a compilation of sources he found by searching Google books that lists many sources that equated NBC with either born in the United States or native born citizen.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/ ... ment-72190

Quote:

The PTA magazine: Volume 48
National Congress of Parents and Teachers – 1953 – Snippet view
The President must be thirty-five years of age. born in the United States, and fourteen years a resident within the United States. 32. He is commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, grants pardons, calls extra sessions of Congress, …

Civics for citizens
Stanley Ellwood Dimond, Elmer F. Pflieger – 1965 – 636 pages – Snippet view
A natural-born citizen is one born in the United States or in one of its possessions. It is generally believed that a person born in a foreign country whose parents were American citizens could become President, but this issue …

The American Constitution
Charles Herman Pritchett – 1968 – 840 pages – Snippet view
Every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen and, of course, a natural-born citizen.

The American review
Johns Hopkins University. Bologna Center. European Center of American Studies – 1960 – Snippet view
The Constitutional qualifications for President are astonishingly simple: he must be born in the United States and be thirty-five years of age. These are the only qualifications: on all the other matters that have commanded so much …

…

Thought it would be fun to see how many google books I could find defining "natural born citizen" to help out those poor birthers searching old book stores for such books. I only have found about 400 so far. Link to such books can be found here if anyone is interested:

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.b ... tates.html

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:52 pm

Again, I ask: Who after U.S. v.Wong Kim Ark and prior to 2008 defined "natural born Citizen" as requiring two citizen parents? You know, like what we all learned in skool. (And like Orly Taitz learned at Taft Law Skool.)

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:12 pm

nbc wrote:

And what about those who are granted citizenship by statute at birth? Since Congress can only provide for uniform rules of naturalization, what does this make people who are granted citizenship under statute?

Which people would these be? I thought you were either born a citizen or naturalized, and that qualification for naturalization was established via statute. I didn't know there was a category of people who are only granted citizenship at birth via a statute....

Or am I missing something here?

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:36 pm

thorswitch wrote:

nbc wrote:

And what about those who are granted citizenship by statute at birth? Since Congress can only provide for uniform rules of naturalization, what does this make people who are granted citizenship under statute?

Which people would these be? I thought you were either born a citizen or naturalized, and that qualification for naturalization was established via statute.I didn't know there was a category of people who are only granted citizenship at birth via a statute....

Or am I missing something here?

Isn't this the case of infants born to American parent(s) outside of the borders of the USA (the McCain example) ?

Jez · **Posted:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:27 pm

I think people that are born outside of the United States to Citizen parent(s) are a special case, and it's unclear. McCain would have been a great test case for that, given his unique circumstances.

But that leaves the questions: Are children born it citizen parents outside of US Jurisdiction Natural Born? I'm thinking of all the military kids that are born while the parents are stationed overseas.

Are those children natural born? Or considered Naturalized? I know Lola asked the Consulate for her sons, who were born in England to a US Citizen mother. And, if I remember correctly, the Consulate said that yes they were considered Natural Born.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:32 am

ballantine wrote:

Thought it would be fun to see how many google books I could find defining "natural born citizen" to help out those poor birthers searching old book stores for such books. I only have found about 400 so far. Link to such books can be found here if anyone is interested:

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.b ... tates.html

On that list, I noticed this:

Quote:

Ideals of the republic - Page 81

James Schouler - 1908 - 304 pages - Full view
And, moreover, one cannot be President of the United States, nor even a governor as some States set the rule, unless native born, and resident besides for a specified time. Rotation in office is procured by fundamental provisions which ...

Curious, I tried looking up some State Constitutions. A fast, lazy job got me this. More than half these links are broken, but for those that lead to actual State Constitutions, not one requires that the Executive/Governor be a "natural born" or "native born" citizen of the US (or of the State). Does anyone know of a state that does, or that used to? If so, it might be interesting to uncover any state-specific documentation indicating what that was thought to have meant.

On a tangent, however, I did find it interesting how lightweight some of the eligibility requirements actually are. The citizen/resident/elector/voter requirements range from 0 years to 20 years. 5 years is very popular. In a number of cases citizenship is not mentioned, preferring instead 'qualified elector' or the equivalent. I presume only citizens can be electors. The age requirements are mostly 30, Illinois is 25.

I find this interesting because of the outrageous xenophobia that has swept the country. The rhetoric on the right (and particularly among the birthers) makes it seem that having a Chief Executive who may have been eligible for dual citizenship at birth, is the most awful breach of national security that can be imagined. They like to invoke the Constitution, but only as a magic word. What they truly fear (and want others to fear) is any shade of teh foreign in a position of authority.

And yet -- in Minnesota, an immigrant who naturalized a year ago could become Governor.

I'm not making a false equivalence between Governor and President -- I'm just saying: if they feel THAT strongly about Obama, you would expect them to feel just about as strongly about some of these state constitutions. Every state constitution, for example, designates the Governor as "Commander in Chief" of the State's armed forces. Don't they fear Ahnold? Jindall?

Not a peep. The laws of the land have these gaping loopholes which would permit foreigners to various positions of executive power, and not a peep.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:36 am

Not necessarily "expert" renunciations, but I ran across a couple of online study guides for the naturalization exam:

http://www.rong-chang.com/naturalization_test.htm

Quote:

38. What are some of the requirements to be eligible to become President?

There are no requirements
Be a native-born, not naturalized citizen, be at least 45 years old, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 20 years
Be a native-born, not naturalized citizen, be at least 35 years old, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years*
Be a native-born, not naturalized citizen, be at least 25 years old, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years

http://www.hooyou.com/naturalization/exam.html

Quote:

51.
Q: According to the Constitution, a person must meet certain requirements in order to be eligible to become president. Name one of these requirements.

A:
Must be a native born citizen of the United States;
Must be at least 35 years old by the time he/she will serve;
Must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years

Well, of course this is what immigrants are teaching their fellow immigrants! They want to take over!

dunstvangeet · **Joined:** Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am **Posts:** 220

thorswitch wrote:

nbc wrote:

And what about those who are granted citizenship by statute at birth? Since Congress can only provide for uniform rules of naturalization, what does this make people who are granted citizenship under statute?

Which people would these be? I thought you were either born a citizen or naturalized, and that qualification for naturalization was established via statute. I didn't know there was a category of people who are only granted citizenship at birth via a statute....

Or am I missing something here?

There is only one category of people that are not just granted citizenship by statute. Those are those Born in the United States, and Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.

8 USC 1401-1409 grant citizenship to a bunch of other categories.

1. Native Americans (8 USC 1401 b)
2. Person born outside the United States to 2 Citizen Parents (8 USC 1401 c)
3. Person born outside the United States to 1 Citizen Parent, who was physically present in the United States for 1 year continguous before the birth of the child. The citizen parent can also have been physically present in the United States for a period of 5 years, 2 of which were obtained after the age of 14. For the 5 years, Military and Governmental service still counts as being physically present, even if overseas. (8 USC 1401 d, e & g)
4. Person of unknown parentage who was found in the United States before the age of 5, provided that he's not shown to have been born outside the United States before he reaches the age of 21 (8 USC 1401 f)
5. Anybody born in Puerto Rico (after January 13, 1941), Alaska (before it became a state), Hawaii (before it became a state), Virgin Islands (after February 25, 1927), and Guam (after August 1, 1950), and Canal Zone (within certain dates).

You can see that this incorporates a bunch of people.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:35 am

dunstvangeet wrote:

There is only one category of people that are not just granted citizenship by statute. Those are those Born in the United States, and Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.

Very interesting - thanks, Dunstvangeet!

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

Who is online