Replies

> SCOTUS views the [repealed] 1790 act as an act of naturalization

That the 1790 Act is a naturalization act is undeniable.

While the bill was debated in the House February 4, 1790 Rep. Aedanus Burke (SC) said, "The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III."

Here we see the foreign-born children of citizens where not citizens, provision had to be made for them in a naturalization statute.

Burke refers to "An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject"

[] no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen (except such as are born of English Parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council or a Member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any Office or Place of Trust either Civil or Military or to have any Grant of Lands Tenements or Hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any other or others in Trust for him
(Stat. Realm Vol. 7, page 636)

Here the English law itself acknowledges that the foreign-born child of English parents is naturalized.

The foreign-born children of citizens have always required naturalization.