Born abroad

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ok, even if we assume that Obama was born in Kenya (which I don't believe), isn't it true he'd he still natural born citizen, because of his mother U.S. citizenship?

For example Lowell Weicker, when thought about 1980 presidential bid, asked his lawyers if the fact he was born in Paris makes him ineglible. They said no, because he was born to U.S. citizens.

What do you think?

[Stranger in a strange land]

Probably, although the Constitution doesn't go into detail on what a "natural born citizen" is. However, a person who acquires U.S. citizenship by birth, either by virtue of being born in the United States or by virtue of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad, would probably qualify.

[You kip if you want to...]

Ok, even if we assume that Obama was born in Kenya (which I don't believe), isn't it true he'd he still natural born citizen, because of his mother U.S. citizenship?

For example Lowell Weicker, when thought about 1980 presidential bid, asked his lawyers if the fact he was born in Paris makes him ineglible. They said no, because he was born to U.S. citizens.

What do you think?

A birthers arguement would be that he only had one American parent, instead of 2.

[Хahar 🤔]

Ok, even if we assume that Obama was born in Kenya (which I don't believe), isn't it true he'd he still natural born citizen, because of his mother U.S. citizenship?

For example Lowell Weicker, when thought about 1980 presidential bid, asked his lawyers if the fact he was born in Paris makes him ineglible. They said no, because he was born to U.S. citizens.

What do you think?

A birthers arguement would be that he only had one American parent, instead of 2.

Irrelevant.

[ag]

Ok, even if we assume that Obama was born in Kenya (which I don't believe), isn't it true he'd he still natural born citizen, because of his mother U.S. citizenship?

For example Lowell Weicker, when thought about 1980 presidential bid, asked his lawyers if the fact he was born in Paris makes him ineglible. They said no, because he was born to U.S. citizens.

What do you think?

A birthers arguement would be that he only had one American parent, instead of 2.

Irrelevant.

I am not so certain. It would depend on the US citizenship law at the time of his birth. If it awarded citizenship automatically at birth on the basis of one parent being a US citizen (so that only registering the fact of birth with US officials were required), that would make the point irrelevant. However, if it made one merely eligible to obtain citizenship on that basis using some sort of a "simplified naturalization" procedure (e.g., upon a parent declaration to a US consul) it could be relevant. The Constitution only clearly makes those born in the US citizens at birth (usually interpreted as satisfying the constitutional "natural born" provision). It does not preclude those not born in the US from being citizens at birth - but that's a matter of statute and statutory interpretation.

So, the right answer is: if he was born in the US he is a "natural born citizen" for sure, by Constitution. If he wasn't - it's a more complicated matter. Not that it makes him ineligible (in fact, most likely he'd be eligible anyway), but it would open legal avenues for questioning that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The fourteenth amendment has this to say on the issue of American citizenship:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A minimalist argument would be the natural-born citizens are those born of a parent with legal residence in the United States on territory that is under the jurisdiction of the United States, all others, even if the parent(s) be U.S. citizens are naturalized, and the law provided for naturalization at birth.  Under that theory, neither Weicker (assuming he wasn't born in the Paris embassy) nor a Kenyan-born child of an American mother would be a "natural-born citizen".  Obama, since he was born in Hawaii, and McCain, since he was born in the Canal Zone, both meet the strictest interpretation of what constitutes, natural-born.  Wicker's claim to being "natural-born" depends upon a broader definition, in which all those who acquire citizenship at birth are "natural-born"

Of course, we might all be misinterpreting what the Founders meant by the clause.  Perhaps in their zeal to prevent the President from becoming an Imperial Cæsar, they meant to render those born via a C-section from becoming President.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Constitution, and ensuing Amendments, identify three distinct types of citizens:

1) "Natural born" (no hyphen) Article II, Section 1, US Constitution
2) Person born - 14th Amendment
3) Naturalized - 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment clearly establishes full equality between the "person born" and the "naturalized" citizen, forbidding the States from making or enforcing any law which will "abridge the privileges or immunities" of those citizens.

The Constitution further leaves the election of the President to the States, via the electoral college.

It stands then to reason then, that the States could not deny a naturalized citizen the privilege of serving as President.

That is patently false however, as we know that a naturalized citizen cannot serve in the capacity of President of The United States.

This means that to be a natural born citizen one must satisfy a higher standard than just being born in the US. The "person born" mentioned in the XIV Amendment attains citizenship via geographical location, and the "naturalized" citizen via act of Congress, but a "natural born" citizen's citizenship is a birthright, passed down from parents (plural) who are also citizens.

The Framers understood the definition, because they borrowed the term from Vattel, They did it, in my opinion, to avoid Presidents with any level of loyalty to the Crown.

[paul718]

The Constitution, and ensuing Amendments, identify three distinct types of citizens:

1) "Natural born" (no hyphen) Article II, Section 1, US Constitution
2) Person born - 14th Amendment
3) Naturalized - 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment clearly establishes full equality between the "person born" and the "naturalized" citizen, forbidding the States from making or enforcing any law which will "abridge the privileges or immunities" of those citizens.

The Constitution further leaves the election of the President to the States, via the electoral college.

It stands then to reason then, that the States could not deny a naturalized citizen the privilege of serving as President.

That is patently false however, as we know that a naturalized citizen cannot serve in the capacity of President of The United States.

This means that to be a natural born citizen one must satisfy a higher standard than just being born in the US. The "person born" mentioned in the XIV Amendment attains citizenship via geographical location, and the "naturalized" citizen via act of Congress, but a "natural born" citizen's citizenship is a birthright, passed down from parents (plural) who are also citizens.

The Framers understood the definition, because they borrowed the term from Vattel, They did it, in my opinion, to avoid Presidents with any level of loyalty to the Crown.

Excellent post.  And welcome to the forum. 

Another recent occurrence was in 1968, with the Mexican-born George Romney.

"While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship. While the Constitution does provide that a president must be a natural born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: 'The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.' Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican revolution. However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790 and removed the language explicitly stating that the children of US citizens are natural-born citizens. As such, it is inconclusive whether Romney was eligible for the office of President."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_presidential_campaign,_1968#Eligibility

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The answer is basically "Most legal scholars agree it would not matter, however this case has never been taken to court so there is no true precenent."

[Јas]

...(assuming he wasn't born in the Paris embassy) ...

You can probably strike this - diplomatic missions do not tend to be afforded extraterritorial status.

[Silent Hunter]

Luis Gonzalez, welcome to the forum.

It would probably best to clarify this in law. However, a generic "one US citizen parent makes you eligible for citizen" would arguably result in cases of illegal immigrants getting pregnant by US citizens to avoid deportation.

[cannonia]

My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.

[Silent Hunter]

My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.

That makes sense. Which is why the "birthers" want to see Obama's US birth certificate.

[Luis Gonzalez]

My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.

That makes sense. Which is why the "birthers" want to see Obama's US birth certificate.

The birth certificate question is a red herring. It doesn't provide proof of Obama meeting the Constitutional requirement; it actually detracts from the real issue and directs the debate to a.

Lacking a precise definition within the Constitution itself, one must search to see what it was that the Framers themselves understood the term to mean. I still return to Vattel because Vattel was widely read by the Framer at the time of the Foundation of the nation.

Benjamin Franklin himself acknowledges that in a letter to Charles Williams Frederic Dumas, dated 12/9/1775:

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. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. 

This is Vattel's definition:

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 the 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.

I am sure that all of this has been posted here before, so forgive me for repeating myself, as far as the notion that "most legal scholars agreeing that it would not matter", I have never seen data as to what "most legal scholars" agree to, but if they believe that satisfying one Constitutional requirement is immaterial, then why satisfy any?

Not satisfying one sets precedent for the idea that none should be.

In addition, and supporting the argument that Obama does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement, and that the whole birth certificate thing is a red herring, is the unquestionable FACT that Barrack Obama was a British subject at birth.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

So, Obama is not born of citizen parents (plural), and was in fact a British subject at birth.

Does it NOT stand to reason that the one situation that the Framers wished to avoid by making natural born citizenship a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency, was a British subject gaining the Presidency?

Lacking case law, or further Constitutional definition, the Framer's understanding of what constitutes a natural born citizen is the current governing Constitutional standard, as Barrack Obama does not meet that standard.

[Stranger in a strange land]

My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.

That makes sense. Which is why the "birthers" want to see Obama's US birth certificate.

The birth certificate question is a red herring. It doesn't provide proof of Obama meeting the Constitutional requirement; it actually detracts from the real issue and directs the debate to a.

Lacking a precise definition within the Constitution itself, one must search to see what it was that the Framers themselves understood the term to mean. I still return to Vattel because Vattel was widely read by the Framer at the time of the Foundation of the nation.

Benjamin Franklin himself acknowledges that in a letter to Charles Williams Frederic Dumas, dated 12/9/1775:

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. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. 

This is Vattel's definition:

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 the 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.

I am sure that all of this has been posted here before, so forgive me for repeating myself, as far as the notion that "most legal scholars agreeing that it would not matter", I have never seen data as to what "most legal scholars" agree to, but if they believe that satisfying one Constitutional requirement is immaterial, then why satisfy any?

Not satisfying one sets precedent for the idea that none should be.

In addition, and supporting the argument that Obama does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement, and that the whole birth certificate thing is a red herring, is the unquestionable FACT that Barrack Obama was a British subject at birth.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

So, Obama is not born of citizen parents (plural), and was in fact a British subject at birth.

Does it NOT stand to reason that the one situation that the Framers wished to avoid by making natural born citizenship a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency, was a British subject gaining the Presidency?

Lacking case law, or further Constitutional definition, the Framer's understanding of what constitutes a natural born citizen is the current governing Constitutional standard, as Barrack Obama does not meet that standard.

But there is case law. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 in 1898 established that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States, even though both his parents were non-citizens and Chinese subjects. This has been upheld and cited as precedent in subsequent rulings.

Furthermore, Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is legally a citizen in accordance with the 14th amendment, which states that the children of legal immigrants and visitors are automatically citizens. The only exceptions are children born to foreign diplomats, untaxed Indians (now obsolete), and enemy forces in hostile occupation of U.S. territory.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Luis Gonzalez, welcome to the forum.

It would probably best to clarify this in law. However, a generic "one US citizen parent makes you eligible for citizen" would arguably result in cases of illegal immigrants getting pregnant by US citizens to avoid deportation.

That already happens. Actually even if BOTH parents are illegal immigrants, any children they have are granted citizenship if born in the US.

[Silent Hunter]

Britain permits dual citizenship though.

Since Obama was born in the USA, he is therefore a US citizen and always has been.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.

Your understanding is incorrect.  The relevant provision has been in place and unchanged since at least 1952, which was the last time the Nationality laws were overhauled in full with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Even if Barack were born in Kenya, all that was required of Ann Dunham for her child to be a citizen at birth was that she be a citizen, that she have resided in the United States for five years, and that two of those years occur after the age of 14.  No matter where Barry was born, he was a citizen at birth.  (The only provision that has changed since 1952 that could have affected him is a requirement that to retain his citizenship he spend at least five years in the United States between the ages of 14 and 28, a requirement that B.O. complied with, and which was reduced to a two year requirement in 1972, and repealed entirely in 1978 in the wake of court rulings that Congress could not provide for a person to lose their citizenship because of a failure to perform some action.

The birth certificate question is a red herring. It doesn't provide proof of Obama meeting the Constitutional requirement; it actually detracts from the real issue and directs the debate to a.

Lacking a precise definition within the Constitution itself, one must search to see what it was that the Framers themselves understood the term to mean. I still return to Vattel because Vattel was widely read by the Framer at the time of the Foundation of the nation.

Benjamin Franklin himself acknowledges that in a letter to Charles Williams Frederic Dumas, dated 12/9/1775:

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. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. 

This is Vattel's definition:

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 the 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.

I am sure that all of this has been posted here before, so forgive me for repeating myself, as far as the notion that "most legal scholars agreeing that it would not matter", I have never seen data as to what "most legal scholars" agree to, but if they believe that satisfying one Constitutional requirement is immaterial, then why satisfy any?

Not satisfying one sets precedent for the idea that none should be.

In addition, and supporting the argument that Obama does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement, and that the whole birth certificate thing is a red herring, is the unquestionable FACT that Barrack Obama was a British subject at birth.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

So, Obama is not born of citizen parents (plural), and was in fact a British subject at birth.

Does it NOT stand to reason that the one situation that the Framers wished to avoid by making natural born citizenship a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency, was a British subject gaining the Presidency?

Lacking case law, or further Constitutional definition, the Framer's understanding of what constitutes a natural born citizen is the current governing Constitutional standard, as Barrack Obama does not meet that standard.

But there is case law. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 in 1898 established that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States, even though both his parents were non-citizens and Chinese subjects. This has been upheld and cited as precedent in subsequent rulings.

Furthermore, Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is legally a citizen in accordance with the 14th amendment, which states that the children of legal immigrants and visitors are automatically citizens. The only exceptions are children born to foreign diplomats, untaxed Indians (now obsolete), and enemy forces in hostile occupation of U.S. territory.

The XIVth Amendment does not use the natural-born citizen phraseology because Dred Scott v. Sanford established as precedent that blacks could not be citizens since they could not be "natural-born citizens" because their parents were not citizens.  At most, the XIVth defines who are the citizens whose children are eligible to become "natural-born citizens".

As for Vattel's formulation of "natural-born citizen", one must keep in mind that at the time legally wives were in general little more than the chattel property of their husbands.  I would say in the context of the 20th century a male-centric view of the requirements of "natural-born citizen" is inappropriate.  Females do retain a distinct legal personhood while married.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitutional requirement isn't "citizen", it is "natural born" citizen.

United States v. Wong Kim supports my argument, it doesn't detract from it.

Being a citizen by virtue of geographical location does not satisfy the "natural born" citizen standard, as I explained in my first post.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Being a citizen isn't the Constitutional standard. The Constitutional standard is "natural born" citizen, as understood by the people who wrote the Constitution.

In addition, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and no act, law, or statute can supersede it

Again, if being born a citizen is the equivalent to being a natural born citizen, then under the XIV Amendment, it is unconstitutional for the States to deny the Presidency to a naturalized citizen.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Constitutional standard is "natural born" citizen, as understood by the people who wrote the Constitution.

Demonstrably false. The Constitutional standard is "natural born" citizen. What those who wrote it felt is irrelevant.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not use the word "felt", this discussion isn't about how anyone "feels" about anything.

The discussion centers around the legal definition of the term "natural born citizen".

Lacking case law defining the term, and a Constitutional Amendment removing the requirement, the definition of the term, as understood by the Framers at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, remains the Supreme Law of the land.

There is nothing demonstrably false about that.


BTW...since demonstrably means easily proven, then you should be able to do just that, not just say it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As for Vattel's formulation of "natural-born citizen", one must keep in mind that at the time legally wives were in general little more than the chattel property of their husbands.  I would say in the context of the 20th century a male-centric view of the requirements of "natural-born citizen" is inappropriate.  Females do retain a distinct legal personhood while married.

Luis, I note that you chose to rebut only the parts of my post that did not address your claims.  Since we no longer hold that females are legal adjuncts of their husbands, as was the case in 18th century pre-revolutionary France, why should natural-born citizenship exist only if the father be a citizen?

[Luis Gonzalez]

As for Vattel's formulation of "natural-born citizen", one must keep in mind that at the time legally wives were in general little more than the chattel property of their husbands.  I would say in the context of the 20th century a male-centric view of the requirements of "natural-born citizen" is inappropriate.  Females do retain a distinct legal personhood while married.

Luis, I note that you chose to rebut only the parts of my post that did not address your claims.  Since we no longer hold that females are legal adjuncts of their husbands, as was the case in 18th century pre-revolutionary France, why should natural-born citizenship exist only if the father be a citizen?

The definition of natural born citizen, came from Vattel, and was applied to the US. Should you chose to ignore the plural form of the word parent used in the text, that is your prerogative, the "s" however, continues to exist.

If Obama's Presidential qualification comes down to ignoring the existence of that "s", I'd say that the fight is over, and he is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office he was elected to.

It is obvious that the phrase meant something to the men who set it in place as a standard, and by all indications, the standard definition of the time, was found in Vattel's book.

As it stands right now, Vattel has a clear definition of the term in his book, we know the Founders referenced to "Law of Nations" as they framed the Constitution, and it would be ludicrous to argue that they created a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency without they themselves understanding exactly what that qualification was.

If you know of another definition anywhere, please provide me with a reference so that I may read further on the subject.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The XIV Amendment states no such thing.