Posted on 02/02/2016 4:36:59 PM PST by 11th Commandment
Fwiw, the term given for this type of naturalized citizenship is “acquired” not “derived”. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.
Would you be as comfortable with Cruz if he were born in Yemen with a Muslim father and an American mother?
You know you are less than truthful. Does a Muslim have allegiance to Sharia or to the US Constitution, etc.?
You don’t know me from Adam. Conversation over
They continue to chase this monkey......and end up looking like the fools they are. Trying to make it more than it is a fruitless cause....they’d do better using that time otherwise.
https://archive.org/stream/newcompletelawdi01cunn#page/n504/mode/1up
No matches found. The word "citizen" does not seem to be present in that dictionary. I'm wondering if it was even present in ordinary English dictionaries, let alone a Law dictionary.
"If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted." Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046
Great find. I need to stick that somewhere where I can find it down the road. I don't understand how I missed it before. I've searched those archives for the words "natural born citizen".
How can a nobleman come to the United States, not become a citizen but have children who are natural born citizens?
Well I looked up William Giles. He was neither a Constitutional Convention delegate, nor a member of a ratifying legislature. He was 13 when the Declaration of Independence was signed by Congress. Ergo, he could have an uninformed opinion on the topic.
Also, in the case of Virginia, there was a state law that would grant children citizenship in Virginia simply from having been born there.
Given that at the time, the overlap between children born to a Citizen father and children born in the United States is very nearly 100%, I don't believe a great deal of effort was made to draw a distinction between the two.
Kewl! Now Cruz can run for Governor of Illinois!
Be my guest...
Guess nobody told Illinois:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/02/illinois-board-of-elections-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
Actually it was Mr. Hillhouse’s quote. Mr. Giles proposed the amendment (which made it into the final 1795 Act) but it was Rep. Hillhouse who made the comment.
Hillhouse was a Connecticut lawyer and came to congress at the same time as Zephaniah Swift. He eventually replaced Olive Ellsworth in the US Senate when Ellsworth became a Supreme Court judge.
It is not surprising that he understood natural born to mean anyone born in the country. He was from Connecticut after all and that was the law in Connecticut.
"If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted." Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046
A good find, indeed. Hillhouse was a contemporary of Zephaniah Swift, who likewise wrote that same year:
"It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection . . .The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens." Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795)
You may have read Michael Ramsey's paper on "The Original Meaning of 'Natural Born.'" Ramsey cites to Swift to show how the meaning of "natural born" conveyed the jus soli meaning from earliest post-Constitutional days:
Swift's treatise on Connecticut law, mentioned above, even more clearly adopts English law. Swift directly ties the status of "subject" to birth in sovereign territory, describing "natural born subjects" as those "born within the state" and later specifically saying that the children of aliens "born in this state" are natural born subjects.86 Swift also included an explanation of the rule, based on the idea of allegiance to territorial sovereign at birth in return for protection, that closely tracks Blackstone.87 Like Madison's assessment, Swift's description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel.
Ramsey also notes the interchangeability of "subject" and "citizen" as used in the post-Revolutionary period, citing, inter alia, to the Massachusetts naturalization acts:
Second, there is evidence that the founding generation, at least in some instances, used "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" interchangeably. For example, Massachusetts continued the English practice of legislative acts naturalizing particular names individuals. These acts recited that the naturalized individuals would have all the rights of (in some cases) "natural born subjects" of the state82 and (in others) "natural born citizens."83 As far as the historical record reflects, no difference was intended; the phrases appear to be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. In particular, the state Acts refer to "natural born subjects" during the Confederation period immediately before and during the drafting and ratifying process, suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution."
So adoption of the term "citizen" was somewhat gradual. It was not, contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, some great paradigm shift. It was a term used by Montesquieu and other illustrious political writers. Attribution solely to Vattel is result-driven poppycock.
Also not a convention delegate, or a member of a ratifying legislature.
Hillhouse was a Connecticut lawyer and came to congress at the same time as Zephaniah Swift. He eventually replaced Olive Ellsworth in the US Senate when Ellsworth became a Supreme Court judge.
It is not surprising that he understood natural born to mean anyone born in the country. He was from Connecticut after all and that was the law in Connecticut.
I think a lot of confusion crept in from people assuming the intent was to follow English common law. At the time, there was probably nearly 100% overlap between the Vattel criteria and the English law criteria.
I think most people didn't really ponder the question one way or the other. I think that with States granting citizenship, sometimes it was one way, (Connecticut) and sometimes it was the other. (Pennsylvania)
The pertinent question was "What was the intent of the framers? " I think if you examine the philosophical underpinnings of their argument for independence, it becomes clear that they were following the natural law philosophy of Vattel, not "Divine Right."
These are two different frameworks of "Natural Law." If you accept the English foundation of "Divine Right of Kings", then it is natural that men owe perpetual allegiance to the agent of God on Earth, which is the King.
If you explicitly reject that framework and accept that the people have a right to decide for themselves who their rulers shall be, then it makes little sense to adhere to incompatible pieces of the old framework.
But it was the custom, so I think a lot of people did. Just not the founders. They understood the distinction between the two frameworks.
Oh, and look! Seems to be a common thread among the English law advocates of citizenship. Especially after the Massachusetts freedom trials.
There's that word "Subject" again. Seems like someone wasn't up to speed.
Like Madison's assessment,
Which he tossed on the ash heap in the case of James McClure.
Swift's description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel.
We have no doubts as to where he got the idea, the question is whether it was an aspect of English law that the founders intended to keep, or to jettison because of it's incompatibility with the natural law philosophy under which they asserted a right to independence.
And once again, Swift was neither a Constitutional convention delegate, or a member of a ratifying legislature. His opinion is hearsay.
So adoption of the term "citizen" was somewhat gradual.
As in those not in the know taking awhile to catch up to what the founders had done.
It was not, contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, some great paradigm shift.
In the scope of a Nation's history, it was an instant. The first official document of the Independent States uses the word "Citizen." The word "Subject" (in a form analogous to citizenship) is not used.
Jefferson deliberately chose to use the word "Citizen."
It was an explicit rejection of the English law based relationship between the ruler and the ruled.
And yes, it was a paradigm shift. The creation of the nation was a paradigm shift. The only other government in the world that was similar was Republique des Suisses.
You always post pretty good stuff. :)
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.