Posted on 04/02/2013 9:04:27 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
The Immigration and Naturalization Service:
“Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
Interpretation 324.2(a)(7):
“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
Interpretation 324.2:
“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
(Excerpt) Read more at uscis.gov ...
Subsequent to WKA this is no longer true.
WKA didn't create a new kind of citizenship. The ruling said that the 14th Amendment affirmed the ancient rule which had always applied.
And those who introduced the 14th Amendment believed that it was simply declaratory of the law as it already was.
Rawle tells us back in 1825 what the rule was:
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
Gray applied ECL and ignored US law. The result was that the children of aliens became citizens, which is novel. This novelty separated native born citizen from natural born citizen, the terms are no longer synonymous.
Congratulations. You found someone in history who actually agrees with you. Alexander Porter Morse. Writing in the late 1800s.
I give you around 30 early authorities, all before 1850, who say the opposite of what you claim, and you ignore them.
Many of whom are EXTREMELY authoritative. Like William Rawle and St George Tucker.
But hey, we’ve got a lawyer from the late 1800s who wrote an opinion piece. That trumps all of the early experts.
It’s as I said earlier. We have 1 pound of evidence on one side of the scale, and 20 pounds of evidence on the other side. You ignore the 20 pounds and claim that the 1 pound outweighs the 20 pounds.
It doesn’t.
No, he ACCURATELY stated that the US rule on citizenship derived from the English common law.
And it wasn't novel in any way, as shown by WIlliam Rawle's authoritatively proclaiming, in 1825, that it was the rule.
Your claim - and Rawle’s - are contradicted by the Naturalization Act of 1790 et. seq., The Report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the holdings of the United States and Mexican Claims Commission, Sen. Trumbull (framer of Amend. 14)
Which is what I said - "Gray applied ECL"
“National character as incident to birth in a particular was the creature of feudal times and of military vassalage, and was described as the jus soli; national character as the result of parentage was the rule adopted by freer peoples and more enlightened communities, and was designated jus sanguinis.” A Treatise on Citizenship 1881
Not true. Those Acts never addressed the status of children born on US soil.
The Report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Are you referring to Samuel Roberts' personal opinion? As we've seen, that is FAR less authoritative than Rawle's.
the holdings of the United States and Mexican Claims Commission
Again, FAR less authoritative than the US Supreme Court
Sen. Trumbull (framer of Amend. 14)
Who never said it took citizen parents for anyone born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. PERIOD.
Once again, all you have is weak and unauthoritative evidence against the great mass of early authorities, plus the US Supreme Court and virtually every real authority throughout US history.
Like I said earlier, it's a pound of evidence on one side of the scale, and 20 pounds of evidence on the other side. You argue that a pound outweighs 20 pounds, because you like the pound.
But it doesn't.
Have you seen this thread?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2908140/posts
WXRGian compiled some excellent info. Here’s a sm part of it:
“Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles[1] already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.
And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it.
How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:
During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:
“… 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…” (2nd para) [boldface added]
Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”
Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.[2] Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:
“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]”
Lots more info on the thread too. Thanks, WXRGina.
Well I wonder why they wasted so much time taking it all the way to the Supreme Court then, lol?
Rawle’s claim - and yours - regarding ECL and citizenship are without foundation.
Neither the Constitution nor Federal statute incorporate ECL, nor is the Judiciary empowered to incorporate it.
I agree that the 14th Amendment did nothing to change definitions of citizenship that came before it’s adoption. What the Amendment did was to specify who is a [natural] born citizen (All persons born...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and who isn’t (...”naturalized”...).
Morse is translating Vattel.
Because there were people who wanted to deny citizenship to Wong Kim Ark based not merely on the fact that his parents were non-citizens, but on the fact they were Chinese.
Thanks for putting this up. I’d seen it before, but this time I’ve bookmarked it. It’s a stunning repudiation of the Jus Soli argument.
Yes, and that was his mistake.
He approached citizenship from a kind of international-law perspective, which was not how it had historically been approached.
He really doesn't seem to know that much about his subject, as he completely fails to quote early US legal experts such as William Rawle and St. George Tucker.
If he had any disagreement with them, then he should have stated why, in his opinion, they were wrong.
But Morse doesn't even act like he knows that these authoritiative early legal experts even exist.
The phrase "natural born citizen" never occurs in the 14th Amendment.
Well doesn’t that sound racist, those neanderthals.
Wonder if anything else might have been at play there, like, oh I don’t know, a treaty or some such silliness?
On a subject as central as citizenship, over the course of 100+ years, you'll be able to find people saying almost anything. But if you're going to cite sources, you have to have the preponderance of them on your side. Here, it's like you're finding a few needles in a haystack and proclaiming it's a needlestack.
Ms. Publius Huldah is an invaluable resource, a wealth of constitutional wisdom and knowledge. Her website is also a treasure trove of information and insight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.