Fact check: Can a person born outside the US to US citizen parents be considered a natural-born citizen for presidential eligibility?

1. Summary of the results

The question of whether a person born outside the US to US citizen parents can be considered a natural-born citizen for presidential eligibility has been addressed by various analyses. According to the Wikipedia entry ^[1], the legal consensus is that "natural-born" includes persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, citing the 1790 Naturalization Act, CRS reports, and case law such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark. This view is supported by the Vox article ^[2], which explains that the natural-born-citizen clause requires a person to be a citizen at birth, either by being born on U.S. soil or by being born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. However, the 2025 White House executive order ^[3] does not address children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents and its restrictive language on citizenship recognition runs counter to the broader inclusion argued elsewhere. Other sources, such as the ACLU ^[4], American Immigration Council ^[5], and Brennan Center ^[6], do not directly address the question, but provide context on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Additionally, sources like USAGov ^[7] and HISTORY ^[8] imply that a person born outside the US to US citizen parents may be considered a natural-born citizen, but do not provide a clear answer.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Some key context and alternative viewpoints are missing from the original statement. For instance, the historical context of the natural-born-citizen clause, as mentioned in the HISTORY source ^[8], suggests that the phrase was common in 18th-century British law and recognized all children born to British parents as 'natural-born subjects,' even if born outside the British Empire. This context is important in understanding the intent behind the clause. Furthermore, the analyses from the ACLU ^[4], American Immigration Council ^[5], and Brennan Center ^[6] provide alternative viewpoints on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which could inform the discussion on natural-born citizenship. The controversy surrounding President Obama's citizenship, as discussed in the source ^[9], also highlights the need for clarity on the issue. Some of the key points to consider include:

• The historical context of the natural-born-citizen clause ^[8]
• The implications of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause on birthright citizenship ^[6]
• The controversy surrounding President Obama's citizenship and its relevance to the discussion ^[9]
• The potential impact of the 2025 White House executive order on citizenship recognition ^[3]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

There is potential for misinformation or bias in the original statement, as it does not provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the issue. The statement may benefit certain groups, such as:

• Those who support a broader definition of natural-born citizenship, as argued by the Wikipedia entry ^[1] and the Vox article ^[2]
• Those who oppose the 2025 White House executive order and its restrictive language on citizenship recognition, as discussed in the source ^[3]
• Those who seek to clarify the qualifications for presidential candidates, as implied by the USAGov source ^[7] and the HISTORY source ^[8]

However, the statement may also be misleading or incomplete, as it does not account for the complexity of the issue and the various viewpoints presented by the different sources. It is essential to consider multiple sources and analyses to form a comprehensive understanding of the topic.