Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: JCBreckenridge
Why does the 14th mention ‘naturalized citizen’ and draws a distinction between them and ‘citizens’?

Because they aren't the same thing. Former slaves were not "naturalized" in the conventional sense. They were "naturalized" en masse by passage of the 14th amendment.

Now a question for you. Why aren't the words "natural born" right next to the word "citizens" in the 14th amendment? Was ink too expensive?

1,127 posted on 03/11/2013 2:29:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

Hence my point. Cruz is a naturalized citizen.

“They were “naturalized” en masse by passage of the 14th amendment.”

No, they weren’t. And that’s my point. Slaves were retroactively made native citizens of the united states, and not naturalized citizens.

“Why aren’t the words “natural born” right next to the word “citizens” in the 14th amendment? Was ink too expensive?”

Burden remains on you to show that your definition can be found in the 14th. It is not. Ergo- it is safe to assume that the definition of citizen here is those born in the united states, or born in territory that would become part of the united states, slave or free, was a citizen of the United States, from the time of their birth.


1,167 posted on 03/11/2013 4:56:21 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1127 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson