Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural born citizen of the United States


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep. The consensus is that this is a notable subject and that its content covers more than a mere dicdef. Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Natural born citizen of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This really is not suitable for an encyclopedia article--it's more suitable for Wiktionary. In English the phrase "natural born citizen" simply means 'citizen at birth.' The OED defines "natural born" as "having a specified position or character by birth." Thus a 'natural born citizen' is simply a citizen at birth. All the court cases cited in this article were about the question of citizenship from birth. Yet the article consistently implies that "natural born citizen" refers to some special other kind of citizenship. There is no foundation for that implication, which violates WP:OR. This needs to be deleted or at least seriously rewritten to remove that completely unfounded implication. Mystylplx (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further note: There seems to be quite a bit of confusion between the definition of the phrase "natural born citizen' and 19th century debate over what the requirements were to be a citizen from birth. All the court cases cited were about whether someone was or was not a U.S. citizen from birth. None of them support the contention that "natural born citizen" might refer to some third, other, type of citizenship. Indeed, such a suggestion would have been counterproductive to their cause, as in all cases they were attempting to argue that some person was not a citizen at all, not merely that they were ineligible to run for President. Mystylplx (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I placed the AFD tag onto the article, and added this debate to the master AFD list for March 24. No opinion on deletion, really, except that this is absolutely going to be a useful search term due to the ambiguity over the definition. If it can be properly sourced, as it appears to be, and if it can be sufficiently separate from Citizenship in the United States, for example, then a keep wouldn't be out of the question. My concern is that I can't figure out whether a merge would be of benefit here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose In the US, a natural born citizen is eligible to run for President while a naturalized citizen cannot. There is some disagreement on what exactly NBC is - the Constitution uses the term but does not define it.  There are some cases (as you can see in the article) the cover parts of the debate.  So is NBC a special type of citizen?  Yes.  It's the only type of citizenship that can run for the President of the United States. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There has never been disagreement on what an NBC is until 2008. Prior to that, in the 19th century, there was disagreement on what the requirements were to be a citizen from birth, but that is quite distinct from debate over the meaning of the phrase. The framers never defined it because there was no need to. It was a well understood phrase in the English language. The Oxford English dictionary is the internationally recognized authority on the language and lists the definition of natural born as going back to the 1500's. There is no basis upon which to assert that natural born means something different when put in front of the word "citizen" than it does when put in front of any other word. Mystylplx (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal put it like this--" Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
 * Strong keep This article covers a highly notable topic – a clause of the United States Constitution; reading the article makes it apparent that this goes far, far beyond a simple dictionary definition. I believe this is outside the scope of Wiktionary, in any case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this is a textbook case of a legal article that is much more than a dicdef. Clauses of the United States Constitution are almost always kept at AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point is there is no court case nor any reliable source that has ever said that "natural born citizen" means anything other than what it means in English. There are lots of words and phrases in the Constitution that have never had any court ruling on a special legal meaning for them. In such cases they simply mean what they mean in English. The idea that "natural born citizen" refers to some special third kind of citizenship rather than it's English meaning of "citizen at birth" was essentially invented by "birthers" in 2008 and I don't think birthers count as reliable sources. Perhaps the article should be merged with birthright citizen.
 * Can you provide a complete cite for that Wall Street Journal article? It should be in the article as well. bd2412  T 22:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mystylplx (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The very fact that we can write an article on the subject with 60+ references, including newspaper articles referring to the dispute over the meaning, is indication that there is more to this subject than a dictionary definition, whatever thenominator's beliefs to the contrary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, there was never dispute over the meaning. There was dispute over what the requirements were to be a citizen from birth. All the court cases and all the arguments were over what the requirements were to be a citizen from birth. This very misunderstanding seems to be the real problem with the article, which confuses debate over the requirements as if that was debate over the meaning. Each of those cases and newspaper articles were arguing about who was and was not entitled to citizenship from birth at all. None of them were saying that a "natural born citizen" was anything other than someone who was born a citizen. Mystylplx (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, naturally. If there was never dispute over the meaning, well, clearly the requirement to be a natural born citizen is simply that one be included in what is covered by that undisputed meaning, so any dispute over what the requirement is, is pointless. But, as the article and the sources referenced therein show, there are and have been non-trivial issues concerning the interpretation of the concept. --Lambiam 20:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends on whether there has ever been any credible dispute. In this case there has not. Gotta love the whole section Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned. "Was questioned?" And this is an encyclopedia? None of them were ever credibly questioned. Dispute does not equal credible dispute. Mystylplx (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The question of what a "natural born citizen" is, and whether it is or is not simply the same as someone who has been a citizen since birth, is not a brand-new, 2008 "birther" invention — it's been raised several times in the past, regarding the presidential eligibility of people such as George W. Romney and Barry Goldwater.  Although the majority consensus view through the years (and, for what little it's worth, my own personal view) has been that "natural born citizen" is, by definition, identical in meaning to "citizen since birth" (or, possibly, "citizen since birth according to US law in effect at the time of the person's birth") — and though it may possibly be true that many/most people challenging this view in recent years have been wacko nut jobs — that is not enough to support a conclusion that "natural born citizen" is no more than a dictionary synonym for "citizen since birth".  Also, my impression is that a large segment of the American population tacitly assumes that "natural born" must obviously mean "born on US soil"; and while I personally don't agree with this, I assume there are probably enough secondary sources reporting this as one possible mainstream position to make it appropriate for inclusion in WP.  I do agree, in any case, that the article ought to be edited so as to focus specifically on the historical question of what a "natural born citizen" is — acknowledging views that say it means the same as "citizen since birth", as well as other positions — but I assume it is feasible to do such a thing within the context of an article bearing this title.  So I believe it ought to be kept.  Richwales (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because an issue has been "raised several times" doesn't mean it is credible. You mentionGeorge W. Romney and Barry Goldwater, and yes there were some minor controversies in those cases, but nothing of any significance. Certainly not enough to use as an excuse to claim the phrase means something other than what it means in the English language. Then we have a NY Times article which uses some rather extreme language to write about a proposed bill which essentially would merely have clarified that anyone who is born a citizen is eligible to be President. And then several Law review articles written by students... There is simply nothing significant or credible in any insinuations that NBC means something other than citizen at birth. Yet the article as written certainly implies that this is so. There's a whole bunch of SCOTUS cases, ALL of which were about citizenship at birth, but the way that section is written implies disagreement over the meaning of the phrase rather than disagreement over the requirements to be a citizen at birth, which is actually what was happening. Then the section "Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned" ... "Was questioned?" Questioned by whom? Just because a minor political confusion happened a few times but never amounted to anything is not an excuse to promote conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if the "natural born citizen" controversies were nothing more than conspiracy theories — a suggestion, BTW, with which I do not agree — that would not necessarily mean the article should be deleted. (See, for example, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.)  Not everyone bringing up the "natural born citizen" question is an obvious fringe wacko, though, so we would be on thin ice if we were to summarily dismiss all such suggestions as obviously groundless and unworthy of any mention.  The consensus right now appears to be almost unanimously in favour of keeping the article; but if it does end up being deleted, I would certainly say that most of the material here would need to be re-added to Citizenship in the United States, President of the United States, and/or several other articles — and the fact that the material probably would end up being scattered or duplicated in so many other places is probably, in and of itself, a strong argument for keeping it where it is.  Richwales (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well sourced article on a legal topic that (for some reason) has generated controversy. Article isn't perfect in current form, but does meet notability standards. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong and speedy keep. This is definately deserving of an encyclopedia entry.  It has an extensive history, including legislative and legal.  It needs work to make it a better article, to be sure, and perhaps I can add to it in the summer during my editing season.  It is topical, historic, and legal.  Definately deserving of an entry.  ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep: Regardless of whether article needs improvement, this is not a dictionary-level issue, but one which has been the subject of much analysis and controversy, just like many other phrases in the U.S. Constitution.--Milowent (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This article documents an important provision of the Constitution and the various controversies about it that have arisen in American history. I have heard that perhaps this provision was written (in part) to keep Alexander Hamilton from becoming president, because he was born in the British West Indies. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alexander Hamilton would, as far as I'm aware, have been covered by the grandfather clause allowing citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be President. Richwales (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Obviously notable and well-sourced subject that has been a source of controversy for a significant period of time. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Mystylplx may have a point, in that the existing article could and should be improved to focus more closely on the question of whether there is a difference between "natural born citizen" and "citizen since birth".  I don't believe by any means that this justifies deleting the article — I absolutely believe the article ought to be kept — but I do think there should probably be a section (near the start) summarizing the main arguments for and against a distinction between these two phrases.  Richwales (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems to me that the distinction is between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen, and not eligible to be president or vice president, but he is eligible for any other office, state or federal. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This page is indicative of the controversy. Mystylplx mentioned that the OED defines "natural born" as "having a specified position or character by birth," and later claimed "the Oxford English dictionary is the internationally recognized authority on the language." The OED is a fine dictionary, but it does not make US law. Its prominence in the article is unwarranted.  US courts tend to like Webster's when looking for the way a term is used in everyday use, but that's not a firm law, just a tendency. Black's Law Dictionary is a common legal dictionary in the US, and it describes the Natural Born Citizen Clause as "the clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency. U.S. Const. art. II, §1, cl. 5," but under "natural-born citizen," it says "a person born within the jurisdiction of a national government." At first, these seem similar but subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and within the United States mean different things in law. I would certainly prefer that it mean a person conferred that status at birth, but it does seem that, by the law at the time of framing that jus soli was the norm, except for children of diplomats, so children born in the U.S. would be the only ones conferred citizenship at birth, in the minds of the framers. Considering the controversies with three presidential campaigns in the last three presidential elections, it is definitely notable. mcornelius (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename This is a valid, referenced topic. It should be titled differently so readers know what it is really about. Dew Kane (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.