Posted on 03/11/2010 8:25:03 AM PST by kyright
Plurality indicates more than one; however the meaning as-is is ambiguous; it can indicate that both parents must be citizens, or since the target children is plural it is merely following the same convention, indicating not a specific child or parent but children and parents at a whole.
The statute confers natural born status to a male person born abroad. The "residency" clause limits or conditions the descent of that male's citizenship to his children.
Please highlight the verbiage of the Act that convey citizenship to males born abroad. I see no such distinguishing language.
Furthermore please highlight the verbiage of the Act that unambiguously requires citizenship of the father.
If you can do that, I will defer to your position; I would expect that a logical, rational person would defer their position if they cannot support it. So please point to the verbiage in the Act that unambiguously supports your position, or you can concede the point.
You need to be deprogrammed and weaned off liberal koolaid .
- Jackson, and Jefferson were born before 1787 at the time of the adoption the US Constitution so they fell under Constitutional grandfather clause.
- Buchanan , Wilson, Hoover's parents were US citizens at the time they were born.
- Chester Arthur successfully hid the particulars of his birth from the US public, and burned documents later in life to hide that he was not a natural born citizen. It was only after his death that it became well-known that he did not qualify for office. There was no Internet in the 1800 to get the word out. Citing Arthur because he skirted the NBC clause does not give Obama the right to do so.
Ummmm you do know what 'superseded' and 'repealed' means right? The Naturalization Act of 1795 took the place of the earlier act in its entirety. I gave you the correct reason to why they removed the words natural born citizen from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when Congress repealed it.
I believe we see who is the amateur, or at least not familiar with the English language...
Haahaa..I read just fine. You however, should give it another look.
Why does that same standard not apply to Obama regarding British citizenship?
I did. You're the one who is playing the game of a sophist. If the statute meant to say "children of a parent," it would have done so. Ambiguity to "children of citizen parentS" has to manufactured.
I'm not going to concede the point, and I doubt you will either. Talking with you is a waste of time. Or, in short, "plonk."
Chester A. Arthur NEVER hid the fact that his father was born in Ireland. His father was a well known minister in Vermont and it was always known that he was an Irish immigrant. It didn’t matter then and it doesn’t matter today.
There is NO requirement that one’s foreign born parents be naturalized in order for a person born in the United States to be a natural born citizen. There is no difference between a “born citizen” and a “Natural Born Citizen” anywhere in US law.
Where does the Act you cite address children born overseas? The 1795 Act deals only with naturalization of aliens. The act of 1798 extended the timeline for residents to wait until naturalized. Nothing addressed the originally granted state of citizenship of children born abroad to at least one parent who was a US Citizen.
Considering the men who wrote the Constitution considered children born abroad of US citizens should be natural born - and explicitly declared as such in the first US Congress - I believe we should interpret legislation from that point forward with the Framer’s original intent included. If you are born to US citizens, you’re a US natural born citizen regardless of the locale of your birth. That’s what the Framer’s explicitly said, that’s what we should do.
Oh yes he did hide the particulars about his birth and it does matter.
You speak of statutes to deal with constitutional issues.
Statutes do not modify, nor do they interpret the constitution. We have had these irrelevant bits of code posted here numerous times by disruptors bent on clouding what is really a clear issue. Personally, I am quite weary of this repugnant smoke screen.
No, you didn't. You can only reach your conclusion by ignore the plain and explicit language regarding the residency of the father. If the father was a citizen, then why would the requirement to have been a US resident at some time be of concern? The fact that the father had to be at least a resident for some time clearly indicates that the father did NOT have to be a citizen (you could not become a citizen without residing within the US at some time).
You're ignoring the parts of the original Act that defined the status of the children and parents. Here it is again:
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.
Work out the cases possible, and you will see your error:
1. Neither parent a citizen: child is not a citizen.
2. Mother a citizen, father not a citizen and never a resident: child not a citizen.
3. Father a citizen, mother not a citizen (residency immaterial): child a citizen.
4. Mother a citizen, father not a citizen but was a resident: child a citizen.
5. Father and mother citizens: child a citizen.
Those cases are what are explicitly laid out in the Act by its very language the explicit qualification of the residency - NOT citizenship - of the father.
I'm not going to concede the point, and I doubt you will either. Talking with you is a waste of time. Or, in short, "plonk."
Yes, so rather than discuss logically and support your point or attempt to show my shortcomings, you'll walk away. Well, jolly for you!
Once again, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was partly unconstitutional that Congress realized their mistake and repealed it 5 years later. They could not change the meaning and intent of the US Constitution by statute.
If you are born to US citizens, you’re a US natural born citizen regardless of the locale of your birth. That’s what the Framer’s explicitly said, that’s what we should do.
No, not if the birth child received foreign citizenship from his birth country. De Vattel's definition is the meaning and intent behind the US Constitution NBC clause.
Who wrote the original Statute from the First Congress? The men who wrote the Constitution. The Constitution is the Framework; the original Statutes are a great look inside the intent of the Founders in the way the Constitution was enacted.
The men who defined who could be President also defined what was a natural born citizen, and to them it was anyone born of at least a citizen mother and a resident father, anywhere in the world. Per the first citizenship statutes of the First Congress.
But since you won’t accept then, then what is the Constitutional definition of a Natural Born Citizen? Use ONLY sources contained within the text of the Constitution, no external writings or statutes. Can you do so? Nothing extrapolated, nothing implied. Just the words of the Constitution alone.
Failing that, we HAVE to turn to extra-Constitutional writings of the Founders to determine what the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” meant to them. And one such set of writings - and one that was most assuredly well debated and reviewed by all the Founders - is the original statutes of the United States.
This is not a smokescreen; it is an honest attempt to clarify what the Founders meant by Natural Born Citizen. If you cannot define that unequivocally from the Constitution itself, then you MUST look at additional writings of the Founders, and we have just such that explicit phrase from them, contained in the citizenship Act of 1790, from their first Congress.
This is more straw!
The question is not what another nation does or allows; it is what a person might do WRT what the other nation offers. If an American citizen has, by circumstance, dual citizenship which he has not formally rebuked and resigned, his allegiance to this country is essentially nonesistant. Its not a case of another nation laying a claim; it is a failure to "Let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay." A man of two minds is utterly unreliable.
Witness: Obama.
I see. So your contention is that the men who wrote the Constitution screwed up when they enacted the Statute as it contradicted what they wrote in the Constitution, and thus changed it.
Can you tell me where in the Constitution it defines what a Natural Born Citizen is? Use the Constitution only, please.
An absolute falsehood! - Enough of your deliberate deception.
Thanks for the warning for what you subsequently posted...
The question is not what another nation does or allows; it is what a person might do WRT what the other nation offers
Yes, because espionage of US citizens simply cannot happen unless a person has a foreign-born father...;) Excellent straw man!
If an American citizen has, by circumstance, dual citizenship which he has not formally rebuked and resigned, his allegiance to this country is essentially nonesistant
For pretty much all countries that offer dual citizenship (including Canada, Great Britain, Denmark, and the like) if you do not formally accept their citizenship at the age of 18 you automatically surrender such claim. In other words, do nothing and it goes away. The default condition is you need to actively claim it when you become an adult.
I don’t know. From what I have read I understand the following:
If born in Kenya to a Kenyan father - he would have been a British subject, until and unless he was legally adopted by Soerto and given Indonesian/parental guardianship until his majority, for purposes of residency, passports and travel(?).
Do we know if Dunham ever became an Indonesian citizen or legal resident?
If he was born in Hawaii to one or more US Citizen parents- he would be a US citizen by birth/location. However, if born to a non-qualified US mother, and a foreign national father he could have exercised an option at majority(?).
It’s very complex without certainty of a marriage/divorce/residence/time-line and certain documentation.
The Act you cite has been repealed and was replaced. In other words, it no longer exists as law. The brand new Congress since the adoption to the US Constitution were not infallible as I have shown you above.
Can you tell me where in the Constitution it defines what a Natural Born Citizen is? Use the Constitution only, please.
Can you show me where it says in the US Constitution that a person born overseas is a natural born citizen?
Without the residency requirement, a foreign born natural born US citizen (by the terms of the statute) male who stays abroad could pass US citizenship to his kin, and absence of residency was seen as resulting in insufficient loyalty to a land that one never set foot on.
-- rather than discuss logically and support your point or attempt to show my shortcomings, you'll walk away. Well, jolly for you! --
Your standard and terms for debate are illogical.
You assert that the language "children of citizens" is ambiguous, then you assert that unless your opponent can point to unambiguous language that you must be right. "It's ambiguous, therefore my opponent MUST be wrong."
I might, at some time, engage you in a flame war, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time in a good faith debate with you.
The strength of your argument here is, shall we say, underwhelming.
I've posted the Act of 1790 several times; can you tell me where in that Act it says you have to born on US soil? And is your contention that the Founding Fathers - the men who defined who could be President - were not the members of the first Congress? That those who wrote the Constitution did not consider, write, and pass the original legislation?
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.