Very interesting research regarding the etymology of the term "citizen". Thanks for the background.
However, I would disagree with the reason why the framers scuttled "subject" in favor of "citizen". The term "subject" inferred subordination to the state, while the framers considered the individual to be "sovereign".
Otherwise, I'd contend that the 1790 & 1795 laws regarding citizenship clearly indicate that the framers (who were part of the legislature at the time) wanted every benefit of citizenship conveyed to children born abroad of an American citizen father -- including eligibility for the presidency.
Such citizenship was an accepted part of British common law because Britain's far-flung commercial interests required British subjects to be far-flung across the globe themselves. A child was no less British because he was born in India of a British father and a maharani.
It was not until 1932, as I recall, that the U.S. parental citizenship requirement was modernized to make the mother the co-equal of the father -- but the requirement remained one citizen parent.
That's not entirely true.
If born in a foreign country, that child could be a naturalized citizen of that foreign country, depending on their laws of citizenship. Thus becoming a dual citizen with divided loyalty's owed from birth.
Of course, with English Common law, that wasn't possible (from their perspective) as the subject owed a complete and permanent allegiance to the one sovereign (King or Queen).
The framers obviously came to the conclusion that they went too far in 1790, repealing the relevant specific part with their next major citizenship act. Otherwise, they would have left it alone had they thought it was ok.
To remove as much doubt on citizenship & loyalty as possible, they went with the one and only definition of "natural born Citizen" they were well acquainted with.
That definition for "natural born Citizen" comes from the well known and celebrated Vattel's Law of Nations regarding nautural law (& not the King's law). They openly read from it at the Federal Convention during the drafting of the Constitution regarding other matters. Natural law, btw. was the internationally accepted legal authority that allowed us to separate from the perpetually owed allegiance to the crown (see references in the Declaration of Independence).
George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states." - From the father of our Bill of Rights.
You're welcome. I consider that background to be one of the more important things I discovered relating to this issue.
However, I would disagree with the reason why the framers scuttled "subject" in favor of "citizen". The term "subject" inferred subordination to the state, while the framers considered the individual to be "sovereign".
So you are thinking they would keep the English law principle of creating a "subject" but call just call it something else?
I am arguing that they adopted the usage of the word "Citizen" because they got this usage of the word from what Vattel had written in his "Law of Nations" instruction manual for creating a Republic. That book of his landed in the Colonies like a hand grenade. Indeed, it appears to be responsible for the very earliest stirrings of revolution. James Otis cites it in his "The Rights of the Colonists asserted and proved" pamphlets. Vattel's book as much as says that the United States should be formed.
"Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted."
At this time in history, there is no other philosopher of natural law suggesting such a thing. As all the nations in the world save Switzerland were Monarchies, asserting that people should form a "Federal Republic" would have been tantamount to treason. The Kings of Europe would not have looked kindly upon such agitation for the overthrow of their rule.
Switzerland was the only nation in which such a thing could be voiced, because it had overthrown it's monarchy 400 years earlier.
Otherwise, I'd contend that the 1790 & 1795 laws regarding citizenship clearly indicate that the framers (who were part of the legislature at the time) wanted every benefit of citizenship conveyed to children born abroad of an American citizen father -- including eligibility for the presidency.
They do not make that clear at all. In fact, the 1790 and 1795 laws make it clear that prior to these laws, foreign birth (with an American father) automatically precluded citizenship, and they further make it clear that having a foreign father also precludes citizenship. Whether they intended this law to affect Presidential eligibility is not clear one way or the other. Being a "citizen" is not necessarily the same thing as being a "natural" citizen.
Such citizenship was an accepted part of British common law because Britain's far-flung commercial interests required British subjects to be far-flung across the globe themselves. A child was no less British because he was born in India of a British father and a maharani.
Yes, but statutory law was created to address this issue. English common law made these people aliens until statutory law was created to change this condition.
It was not until 1932, as I recall, that the U.S. parental citizenship requirement was modernized to make the mother the co-equal of the father -- but the requirement remained one citizen parent.
It was the "Cable Act" of 1922 that initially allowed women to pass on citizenship, and it was the Women's citizenship act of 1934 that expanded it into roughly what we have today.
But such acts cannot amend constitutional law. To change constitutional law, it requires an amendment, not a redefinition of the word "citizen" based on Congress's power of naturalization.
In 1787, a "natural born citizen" had to have an American father, and the mother's citizenship status was immaterial to the point.
> A child was no less British because he was born in India of a British father and a maharani.
That’s not true. The foreign-born children of English fathers could themselves become subjects by naturalization. See for example this 1541 statute.
33 H. 8. c. 25 Stat. Realm Vol. 3
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017915533;view=1up;seq=929