On the question of what is a natural born citizen, the Founding Fathers referred to it in the Constitution concerning qualifications for the office of President. The Constitution is specific that Presidents must be natural born citizens. If you are not, ‘natural born’, you cannot run for office. The Constitution stipulates,

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.

By not formally defining ‘natural born citizenship’ many controversies have arisen. These controversies have refined and shaped the law in regards to defining what is a natural born citizen and what rights do they have. The wording of the Constitution sets up a tiered citizenship. With some citizenship having legal rights not available to the others. ‘Naturalized citizens’ do not have the same legal privileges as ‘natural born’ citizens do.

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, each State individually set up the requirements and the privileges associated with citizenship. It was only when the Constitution was adopted by a majority of States that the legal rights associated with citizenship passed between them. A person from New York could travel to New Jersey and not have to be treated as a second class citizen in that State. Although each State had its own set of laws pertaining to its citizens, the Constitution allowed those rights associated with citizenship to apply to those visiting from other States. Although they had the rights, some of the laws did not always apply. This is one reason why the Burr-Hamilton duel was fought across the river in New Jersey, since dueling had been outlawed in New York, where both men were citizens.

Although the Constitution mentioned ‘natural born citizen’, there were no legal precedents that tested it or defined it. The next major attention on this issue was in the Dred Scott case which was decided in a 7-2 decision. One of the effects of the Dred Scott case was that it extended the rights of citizens to the territories of the United States. This allowed citizens to enjoy the same legal rights, even when they were outside the formal jurisdiction of the united whole. This case allows US citizens to extend their rights and privledges to the territories of the United States.The ruling of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott led to strong reactions throughout the nation.

With the passage of the 14^th amendment, citizenship was changed to become national in scope. Under law, those born in the United States were citizens of the nation as a whole. Prior to this, citizenship was left up to the individual States to define. Once a person was a citizen of a particular State, they had full citizenship rights in the other States as well. Even in the passage of the 14th amendment, there are considerable arguments over the legality of its passage.The amendment continues being the source of many controversies since it not only gave citizenship based on being born in the nation, but also included other far reaching effects.

The suggestion of citizenship based on birth was a radical idea. The idea of citizenship by birth (jus soli) differed from the previous legal notion of citizenship by blood (jus sanguinis). Although it was ground-breaking at the time, the idea spread to other nations. Many nations now use the citizenship by birth concept. Some, like India and Malta have rejected the citizenship by birth idea.

The next major change to citizenship occurred in the Supreme Court ruling of Elk v. Wilkins (1884). In that ruling, persons merely born in the territories were not citizens just because they were born there. The court specified that those born in the territories must show some allegiance to the United States in order to be ‘natural born’ citizens. During this time, there were some who although born in territories did not wish to become citizens.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 allowed Indians to become citizens of the United States, which expanded those eligible for citizenship by automatically granting citizenship status to the tribes.

The courts and Congress continue working on the issue of citizenship. Some of the current controversies are ‘anchor babies’, and the rights of children born out of wedlock to fathers who are US citizens. These issues have yet to be addressed in terms of their association with ‘natural born citizenship’ status.

At the time of the Constitution, a distinction was made between subjectship and citizenship. Subjectship is when you are born under the authority of the government and is derived from feudal law. Citizenship was instead based on loyalty or allegience.

In 1868, when the 14th Amendment was passed, the Congress also passed the Expatriation Act. This act was important in that it allowed citixens to renounce their citizenship and allegience. Such an act was important, since it provides the citizens the ability to renounce their citizenship and loyalty rather than being the property or chattel of the State.