Replies

“No, the “treaty” is not “just” about or applicable only to land owners.”

Then why does Donofrio himself allude to Article IX? He certainly SEEMS to be resting his argument on the language of Article IX:

“So it is Article IX of the Jay Treaty to which we must now turn our attention:

“It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein; and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as may respect the said lands and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens.”

In order to respect Article IX of the Jay Treaty (and other treaties between the US and the United Kingdom), the United States is required – by the supreme law of the land – to respect the status of “British subjects”. In order to respect the legal rights of British subjects, the US must be able to identify them. The only way the US can identify British subjects is by recognizing and giving authority to British nationality law.”

That last paragraph is DEAD WRONG. To respect Article IX does NOT require the U.S. to respect the status of “British subjects.” It only requires us to respect the status of a clearly articulated subset of British subjects, namely those owning land, their heirs or assigns.

I accept the dual citizen argument, but I believe Donofrio is stretching the truth in trying to rely on the Jay Treaty to make his case.