The nbC “Two-Citizen Parents” Issue | by Joseph DeMaio | @ ThePostEmail.com
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2024
(May 5, 2024) — INTRODUCTION
It is frequently argued by opponents of the “two-citizen parents” requirement of Emer de Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) found in Book 1, Ch. 19, § 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), that the requirement “is nonsense.” Indeed, the 2015 article purporting to “resolve” the meaning of the nbC term (“C&K article”) by former high officials in the Department of Justice – Solicitor General Paul Clement and Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal – completely rejects the relevance of the de Vattel nbC definition by ignoring any discussion of de Vattel or the definition in his 1758 treatise altogether. Ignoring facts, however, does nothing to eradicate them.
Instead, the C&K article deploys ipse dixit (“it is so because I say it is so”) to merely declare that “someone born to a [i.e., singular] U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States…,” adding, cryptically, that “a ‘natural born Citizen’ means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.” (Emphasis added)
Stated otherwise, the C&K article announces, ex cathedra, that as long as “a” parent – in the singular – is a U.S. citizen, that alone will suffice to render the child born abroad to that parent a “citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings [thereafter].” The C&K article then somersaults to the non-sequitur conclusion that therefore, purportedly, “a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.” (Emphasis added)
Stated otherwise, the C&K definition posits that, in addition to being seen as a 14th Amendment “citizen,” the person must also be recognized as fitting the definition of a “natural born Citizen” as intended by the Founders in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. Respectfully, your humble servant posits that this simplistic definition is unsupported by the history of the nbC provision and plainly not what the Founders intended or adopted in the Constitution. Accordingly, the C&K conclusion requires closer analysis. … continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/05/05/the-nbc-two-citizen-parents-issue/
# # #
CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Author: Natural Born Citizen
http://www.kerchner.com/books/naturalborncitizen.htm
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
https://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
https://www.protectourliberty.org
CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog 
Read more comments about this article at TheFreeRepublic: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4236020/posts
“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.”
Permit me to suggest the following: This phrase is saying that the CHILDREN who are born to “CITIZENS that may be born beyond sea or out of the limits of the US”, (Children who are born to foreign-born parents …parents who had become citizens prior to the children being born) are Natural Born Citizens.
It is not referring to foreign-born children, but rather to US citizens who were originally foreign born.
It is showing that the 2nd generation of citizenS are Natural Born Citizens…..That the parents do not have to be NBC to create NBC children…..the parents only have to have already been citizens, even if by naturalization.
Respectfully, Diana Yum-Bucher
Sent from my iPad
[Editor’s comment: First: “considered” to be something does not mean it “is” something. Second: The first Congress being new at making laws soon realized the gravity of their mistake in trying to make something a “natural” anything when they cannot. Under the Constitution they only had the power to create “naturalized Citizens”, To correct their error in that first law, they then totally repealed that 1790 man-made naturalization law in 1795 and replaced it with a new naturalization law in 1795 which did not have the adjectives “natural born” in that replacement law — and the term “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) has never been used in any naturalization law passed by Congress since.
But yes, I do agree that the parents only have to be U.S. Citizens of any kind, born or naturalized, when their child in born in the USA for that child to be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. The parents don’t have to be nbC, just a Citizen of any kind. For example, the founders and framers were not nbC’s. They were the Original Citizens which Citizenship they obtained by adhering to the revolution when the country was founded and they then procreated the “natural born Citizens” when their children were born in the new USA. The slaves when freed were granted Citizenship under the 14th Amendment and they could then procreate “natural born Citizens”. In both cases of course the child must also be born in the USA to avoid foreign influence and allegiance requirements of a foreign country if born in a foreign country such as Great Britain. To avoid all these potential foreign influence at birth issues the founders and framers chose the Natural Law “natural born Citizen” term for eligibility to be the President and Commander in Chief, i.e. a person/child born in the country to parents who were both Citizens of the country when their child was born in the country. See this PDF file report of mine: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/Presidents-Grandfathered-or-NBC-or-Frauds.pdf ]