More than 20 million Americans are ineligible to become president because they were not born in the United States and obtained citizenship by naturalization. Valere Gaspard looks at the “tiers” of citizenship that Article II of the US Constitution creates by requiring the president to be a “natural born citizen”, writing that this restriction makes the US an outlier compared to most other liberal democracies which do not use a hierarchy of citizenship in determining eligibility for elected or appointed leaders.
The American Dream is the idea that regardless of where you were born and the circumstances, if you work hard, you can be successful in the United States. Dreaming of becoming President is the embodiment of this idea for many Americans. As President Ronald Reagan said: “everyone wants their dreams to come true… And America, above all places, gives us the freedom to do that, the freedom to reach out and make our dreams come true”.
However, over 20 million American citizens are excluded from this part of the American Dream if they would like to become President, because one must be a natural-born citizen of the United States to do so. In short, if you are a citizen of the United States but were not born there (a naturalized citizen) you are not eligible to be its Head of Government and Head of State. Since there are more immigrants in the United States than any other country in the world, this requirement to become President touches on the very relationship between candidacy and citizenship: why is someone who was born outside of the United States (but who holds citizenship) not eligible to become its President?
Tiers of US citizenship
More specifically, why is it acceptable for this rule in Article II of the American constitution to tacitly create tiers of citizenship in the United States? Let’s start by going to the history books of 1787. At the time, John Jay (the would be first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court) wrote to George Washington about providing “a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government”. This may have been more understandable at the time due to general fear of foreign influence and rumours of people allegedly designing a monarchy in the United States in secret that would be ruled by a foreign power. However, this rule – which assumes that loyalty is rooted in one’s birthplace – is more difficult to justify 235 years later.
Despite present day concerns of foreign interference (especially during federal elections), potential foreign threats are primarily related to how foreign actors can undermine public trust in the electoral system or spread inaccurate information; not about if a foreign power could rule the United States from the office of the President. Therefore, justifying the natural-born citizen rule based on threats of foreign influence is likely an outdated explanation, especially when considering how advanced the country’s security infrastructure is.
The US is an outlier among the G7
Furthermore, while it could be easily argued that the natural-born rule discriminates against naturalized citizens, that other political offices in the United States do not have being a natural-born citizen as a requirement, or that there are gray areas for what it means to be a natural-born citizen, one can also look to other democratic countries to demonstrate that this rule is an anomaly.
Out of the G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States), the United States is the only of these wealthy democracies with the natural-born citizen requirement to run as a candidate in an election to be the Head of Government or Head of State. This shows that out of the world’s leading liberal democracies, the United States is an outlier regarding its candidacy rules for running for one of the highest positions in the country.
Looking at the different criteria of the G7 countries, while the United States has a natural-born citizen requirement to be President, it is at least an elected position. Compare this with the various appointment processes for the positions in five out of the seven countries.
“Presidential Seal” (CC BY 2.0) by ahisgett
Although the comparison of ‘elected vs. appointment’ may initially be a compelling argument, it is important to acknowledge that it misses a key point: the appointment processes in the other countries do not create a hierarchy of citizens within their own state.
Simply put, in the United States, a naturalized citizen is considered to be “less” of citizen and not eligible to run for President; for the sole reason of being born outside of the country. If they moved to a different G7 country and earned a citizenship there, they would hold the same rights as any natural-born citizen of that country to become its Head of Government or Head of State (for those countries which are not constitutional monarchies).
How all Americans could become eligible to be president
While this reality in the United States is discouraging for many naturalized citizens, there is still hope for potential changes. The easiest of changes would be for the Supreme Court to clarify some of the gray areas around what it means to be a natural-born citizen. One of these is ruling on whether a person born outside of the United States whose parents are both American citizens qualifies as a natural-born citizen. For example, in the latest of many debates over potential presidential candidates’ eligibility to become president, in 2016 there were discussions about whether Senator Ted Cruz was eligible, because he was born in Canada to a US-citizen mother and a Cuban US-resident father, but was naturalized at birth by a statute provided by Congress.
A more challenging change would be to allow all American citizens to run for President, since it would likely require a constitutional amendment. Additionally, amending the constitution would require either a joint resolution that is passed by a two-thirds vote or have applications from two-thirds of the state legislature that would have Congress call a convention in response. Although a difficult feat, and one which would require a substantial national campaign, it is one worth pursuing to make sure that all citizens – both natural-born and naturalized – hold the same rights and opportunities in the United States.
Until naturalized American citizens gain the ability to run for President, the freedom Reagan spoke of does not apply equally to all American citizens. Unfortunately, for any who wish to run for President, they will have to wake up from the American Dream.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: https://bit.ly/3pVqVQf
About the author
Valere Gaspard – Western University
Valere Gaspard is a research fellow at Western University’s Leadership and Democracy Lab, a graduate student at the University of Ottawa, and an alumnus for the Parliamentary Internship Program.
The Natural Born Citizen clause shouldn’t be removed, the founding fathers were so smart. They wanted the President to have only one allegiance and the only way to achieve that is through the clause. It has served the nation well and should not be removed.
No disrespect but I don’t personally think that insisting on candidates for the presidency being born in America is a good way of ensuring loyalty. Indeed there are numerous examples of people born in a country who go on to betray it – in the US consider Herbert John Burgman, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg etc. Equally there are many fine and very American naturalised citizens who are loyal to America in a way that perhaps only an immigrant who has been able to make a successful life in America can be. There are many millions of such people and the US presidency is currently missing out by not being able to tap into this talent pool,
SO 2 tier citizenship is ok? Do you think Arnold form Governor of California is not Loyal to the United States? But yet natural born, that served in foreign military is eligible for the Presidency? It’s outdated, Supreme Court would uphold, no 2 tier citizenship.
The original argument doesn’t hold up anymore after 235 years.
This article is contradictory to others I have read. If you must be a natural born citizen, how can Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, run for POTUS? I have heard that he is running for that office again in 2024.
It is time for the American public to understand and realize that US citizens can acquire citizenship at birth abroad (outside of the US). The majority of these people are military connected and have a single citizenship…US. Although the majority of legal scholars believe these US citizens born abroad to be natural born, as they achieved their citizenship at birth with no need to go through a later naturalization process, there is still some debate on this. It is ridiculous that children born to US Armed Forces military members on Official US Orders Abroad, who are sworn to protect and defend the US and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, are not considered 14th Amendment, 1st Clause citizens with all the rights and protections their US born peers receive. (Read Rogers v Bellei, 1971). The US Congress needs to permanently fix this.
What about people who come to America at birth? Adoptions? Pregnancies that happened while waiting for legal immigration status? If someone knows no other loyalty’s to America but was not born in the USA they should be allowed to run. A child does not even retain memory until 3-4 years old… so how can we say even those who came to American before toddler age can’t run when they have no actual memory of life before the USA?
Any person born to a parent who is a U.S. Citizen, regardless of where that birth occurs, is considered a US citizen.
Under the 14th Amendment, Any person born while present on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship of either parent, is considered a U.S. citizen.
See also: U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
US Citizens who acquire citizenship at birth abroad do so because all of the statutory requirements set by Congress have been met. These requirements have changed over time, so the ones that were in place at the time of the person’s birth are the relevant ones. However, because of the 1971 SCOTUS case of Rogers v Bellei, these US citizens who acquire citizenship at birth abroad (or who are naturalized while abroad) are not considered to be 14th Amendment, 1st Clause citizens. They are statutory citizens. That is a difference that most Americans are unaware of. SCOTUS in the Bellei case stated that these statutory citizens (ones who acquire citizenship while abroad) have no Constitutional right to citzenship, but only get it from Congressional grant, and this type of citizenship is not as secure. The Bellei case also narrowed the earlier 1967 SCOTUS Afroyim ruling to only cover 14th Amendment, 1st Clause citizens (those born in or naturalized in the US). The Bellei case is still precedent as it has not been overruled or set aside. Congress has the power to to enact statute that would elevate all statutory citizens who acquired citizenship at birth abroad (or who were naturalized abroad) to 14th Amendment, 1st Clause status upon their first Constitutionally recognized presence in the US. They should do this and make it retroactive and prospective to cover all in this category. All US citizenship should be Constitutionally entrenched.
Because he is a natural-born citizen, having acquired natural citizenship from him being born by his mother who is a US citizen.
Being a natural-born citizen doesn’t mean that you have to be born in American soil. It means that at birth you were already born naturally as a US citizen due to the following conditions:
1.) You were born in the US, or
2.) Your were born with US parents (irregardless of whether your were born in the US or elsewhere)
Carl, I agree with you on the definition of natural born. However, until SCOTUS defines natural born definitively or Congress amends the Constitution to include a definition in Article 2, this will unfortunately continue to be a grey area open for debate and litigation. However, the 1971 Rogers v Bellei SCOTUS case defined who was and was not a 14th Amendment, 1st Clause citizen by saying that one had to be born IN or naturalized IN the geographic US to qualify. As the ruling has not been overruled or set aside, that is still precedent. It is unjust, unfair and just plain ridiculous. Congress needs to fix this once and for all by either amending the US Constitution or passing statute that elevates all statutory US citizens who acquired US citizenship at birth abroad or were naturalized abroad to 14th Amendment, 1st Clause status upon their first Constitutionally recognized presence in the US. This group includes the children of our US military who acquired their US citizenship at birth abroad, or were naturalized abroad, while their parents were serving this country in uniform on official US military orders. That is absolutely unacceptable.