Posted on 12/03/2023 11:31:10 AM PST by 4Runner
It has been my experience that they seldom notice anything that challenges what they wish to believe. :)
This was settled when McCai was in the run.
You're probably referring to this part:
"And the 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"
That congress didn't address the question of the status of persons born within the limits of the United States to foreign born parents. Other parts of the law that you're citing skirt the issue:
"and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States."
So the living children of a naturalized citizen who themselves were under the age of 21 years also became citizens by dint of their father's naturalization.
What that congress didn't address was the question of the country of birth of the children. This can, and has, been used to support both sides of this perennial debate.
One thing is clear though. That first congress did think it important to clarify that the children of an American citizen born abroad were to be legally considered "natural born citizens". But all of this got effectively tossed out the window with a SCOTUS case in 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. That case hashed out exactly the same "debate" that goes on at FR every four years, regarding the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction". The losing side in that case took the same view as many posters here, but it's not like the court hasn't had the discussion.
The added special sauce that gets tossed into the mix is to wonder if there's some undecided ambiguity about the meaning of "natural born citizen", apart from "a citizen who is a citizen and never needed to be naturalized because he was always a citizen".
No one has been able to come up with a compelling argument for that, and it's certainly not for lack of trying. It's a nice distracton on a lazy Sunday afternoon, though.
It also limited access to U.S. citizenship to white immigrants.....
The Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed and superseded the 1790 Act.
The 1795 Act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1798,
The 1798 Act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802,
Then there was the Naturalization Act of 1870
And the legislative list goes on..........
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum and all you're citing is bloggers who make stupid claims that are unsubstantiated by constitutional law.
Since you and the other idiots are so sure of yourselves, you shouldn't have any problem convincing the US Supreme Court......Go for it dude!
Maybe because there is no violation of the constitution?...LOL!
It doesn't take a "position of authority" to commence a legal suit against one's eligibility to run for President. All it takes is a foundational basis to do so and there is no such basis that you claim that would warrant the courts to even listen to you.
“Since you and the other idiots are so sure of yourselves, you shouldn’t have any problem convincing the US Supreme Court......Go for it dude!”
Of course the Act of 1790 was changed. That is not the point I was making, which is the definition of a natural born citizen was directly defined as someone born of citizen parents. That is locked into the Constitution.
Convincing the Supreme Court?? In case you don’t know, dude, and you probably don’t since you are stupid, the Supreme Court CANNOT amend the Cnstitution. They can make rulings until they are blue in the face; there is a separate process to change the Constitution.
Depends on your point of view. If you are a misinformed idiot, you would think there isn't. If you know what you are talking about, then clearly you think that there is.
It doesn't take a "position of authority" to commence a legal suit against one's eligibility to run for President. All it takes is a foundational basis to do so and there is no such basis that you claim that would warrant the courts to even listen to you.
Yeah, we heard the ridiculous claim that *NOBODY* has "standing" to ensure the Natural Born Citizen clause is enforced.
Our courts are ran by fools and liars, and i'm not even talking about the idiot Federal courts, lots of state courts and municipal courts are full of arrogant idiots.
Law means whatever they feel like deciding when they wake up in the morning. It has no anchor to objective meaning in our system.
“And the 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”
Thanks for making my point. The Act had to do with alien naturalization, and they only became citizens after natualization. The children born to citizen parents became natural born citizens.
You don’t think for one second that if the Democrats could have prevented Bobby Jindal, Nimarata Nikki Randhawa, Vivek Ramaswami from running for president based on their and yours interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen”, wouldn’t have done so?
That verbiage got pulled out in 1795. Apparently people pointed out the contradiction of someone being a "natural" citizen through an artificial statute.
And of course "shall be considered as" does not mean the same thing as "is."
Two quarters and a half dollar "shall be considered as" equal, and they are in terms of value, but they are not the same thing.
A more close analogy is adoption of children.
While an adopted child "shall be considered as" a child of the family, they are not actually blood descendants of the family.
Thank you DUDE, you just proved my point. The Natural Born Citizen language is exactly what it means. LOL!
Not if it delegitimizes their chocolate Jesus.
Besides, they don't like America being strictly for Americans anyways. They would much prefer socialist foreigners.
“Thank you DUDE, you just proved my point.”
You think that because you are not very smart. The Constitution and the Act of 1790 draw a distinction between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
There is nothing natural about statutorily created citizenship, either at birth or after birth. It’s the same process. No one has “Consented to be Governed” like every other citizen in our democracy. Citizenship bestowed by the state is not citizenship by natural rights to have that “Consent to be Governed” extended by the citizen parent(s) to the citizen at birth.
LOL!
Re: 68 - this letter being “lost” is if no importance.
The Globe proceedings are available on the Internet. Additionally, the letter is included in Volume 1 of Lash’s quite good two-volume set “The Reconstruction Amendments: Essential Documents”. Expensive but highly recommended.
I agree: “Subject to the Jurisdiction” of the United States” means exclusively only what Congress has passed laws establishing its jurisdiction for purposes of citizenship.
There are two kinds of “Birthright Citizenship”: Citizenship bestowed by the state and citizenship bestowed as a natural right. Citizenship bestowed by positive law is naturalization. Citizenship bestowed by citizen-parent(s) is natural citizenship.
Birthright citizenship
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.