The term «born naturally» was often used interchangeably with «born in the country». [29] The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote in 1756 that the word «natural» means «native» and that the word «native» can mean either a «resident» or a «descendant». [30] Tribe argues that an originalist might say, «Cruz would not be eligible because legal principles prevailing in the 1780s and 90s required someone to be born on American soil to be a `naturally born` citizen. Even two American parents would not be enough for a true originalist. Citizens at the time of their respective birth. [102] [170] [171] A lawsuit filed in Vermont in December 2015[172] and an election challenge filed in New York in February 2016[173] challenged Jindal`s eligibility. The weight of legal and historical authority suggests that the term «naturally born citizen» would refer to a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship «by birth» or «at birth,» either because he or she was born «in» in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even if born to foreign parents; being born abroad to U.S. citizen parents; or by being born in other situations that meet the legal requirements for U.S.

citizenship «at birth.» However, such a term would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or birth, and who was therefore born an «alien» who had to go through the legal process of «naturalization» to become a U.S. citizen. [3] For Emmerich de Vattel, it was of paramount importance that the president be a person whose primary loyalty is to the sovereign nation. The independence of the nation and the president from foreign influence, as Emmerich de Vettel said, was key to their good performance. Emmerich de Vattel asserted that «each sovereign state claims and in fact possesses absolute independence from all others». He continues: «Nations are free and independent of one another, just as human beings are free and independent by nature.» Emmerich de Vattel argued that, since it is important for each sovereign to maintain his independence, «no foreign power has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other states» (with rare exceptions). Gabriel J. Chin, a law professor at UC Davis Law School, said the term «born naturally» is ambiguous and the power to grant citizenship has changed over the years. He notes that people born outside the United States to parents with U.S. citizenship were not always citizens.

[89] [90] For example, children born abroad to persons who became citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854 were foreigners. He also believed that children born in the Panama Canal Zone to at least one U.S. citizen before Aug. 4, 1937, when Congress granted citizenship to all of them, were born without U.S. citizenship. In Scott v. Sanford (1856), the Court described the definition given in the international law of 1797 as «not without exception», which was not disputed in the terminology used at the time. For more information about naturally born citizens, see this article from the Georgetown University Law Center Immigration and Nationality Law Review, this article from Harvard Law Review, and this article from Fordham Law Review. In 2012, Abdul Karim Hassan filed several unsuccessful lawsuits alleging that the Fourteenth Amendment`s equality clause replaced the natural citizen clause. He argued that natural citizenship was a form of discrimination based on national origin. [41] John Armor Bingham, the American lawyer and politician who drafted the 14th Amendment, maintained the belief that Natural Born should be interpreted as being born in the United States.