Replies

It occurred to me yesterday that what people such as Jeff Winston advocate is the most LIBERAL possible interpretation of the meaning, while what people such as myself advocate the most CONSERVATIVE possible interpretation of the meaning.

Nice try. But the fact is, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CREDIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, CONSERVATIVE OR OTHERWISE, THAT ADHERES TO YOUR VIEW.

Neither is your view the historical one. It simply isn't.

Jeff's standard allows anchor babies, birth tourism,

That may be. But I don't think anchor babies or birth tourism were problems that the Framers of the Constitution could have foreseen in 1787, since it took weeks for people to get from one country to another.

Again, we are talking about the system the Framers of the Constitution set up. Not the one we might prefer to set up today.

...fails to explain why Indians and Slaves were barred from citizenship, and also fails to explain the Children of British loyalists after the Revolutionary war. (that they were British, not American. In those days you didn't get to chose your allegiance. )

No, it doesn't fail to explain ANY of those things.

Indians were not citizens because they were members of other nations. Indian tribes were regarded as separate nations that we had no control over, just as we had no control over the governments of England or France, and that we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with England and France.

This is pretty elementary. I'm surprised you don't know it.

Slaves were not citizens because they were legally regarded as property, not people. Again, this is pretty elementary and I'm surprised you don't know it.

As for the children of British Loyalists, we dealt with that issue as well. This had nothing to do with the birth of children to immigrants. It had to do with dividing Americans up after the Revolution into US citizens, or British.

The Supreme Court was clear that if a person was born in America before or immediately after the Revolution, he or she had the right to choose American citizenship upon reaching adulthood. If he or she was taken off to England or somewhere as a child by Loyalist parents, and waited a long time and failed to elect to come back to America, then he or she could lose that right by not making the choice as a young adult.

A minority on the Court argued that anyone born on US soil after July 4, 1776, was automatically a US citizen, even if their birth was immediately after than date, and that even in later life they were still US citizens even if they had never come back to America. They also said that NOTHING was better settled in the law than the fact that the children born in a country were citizens of that country, even if their parents were aliens.

So your claim that the COMPLETELY HISTORICAL AND ACCEPTED UNDERSTANDING of natural born citizen fails to account for these various groups of people is simply and completely false. Just like your claim that it ever took two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen.

Nice try. But the fact is, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CREDIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, CONSERVATIVE OR OTHERWISE, THAT ADHERES TO YOUR VIEW.

You really do sound like a loon when you say stuff like this. I have lost count of the number of Authorities throughout history who adhered to the view that "natural citizens" are born to citizen parents. That you keep repeating ad infinitum ad absurdum that there are none, reminds me of Baghdad bob.

Yes, the founders were known for their short sightedness and stupidity. And of course it's a lot more plausible that the FOUNDERS were incredibly stupid than it is that later Americans were incredibly stupid.

The Founders only had to deal with about 100,000 British loyalist children who were born within our borders after the Declaration of Independence. The founders stupidly did not make them citizens, but we know better than that now.

Indians were not citizens because they were members of other nations.

I cannot believe how many times i've heard that as a response to the status of Indians. It is a consistent misunderstanding of the point that is ubiquitous amongst your type. It is seemingly impossible to get your type to even understand the question, let alone give a reasonable answer. I'll try again.

You claim Foreigners ("members of other nations") get automatic citizenship from being born here. You also claim Indians are "members of other nations". If the standard citizenship doctrine of the United States is that "members of other nations" get automatic citizenship when they are born here, why do not Indian "members of other nations" get citizenship when they are born here?

Indian tribes were regarded as separate nations that we had no control over, just as we had no control over the governments of England or France, and that we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with England and France.

This is pretty elementary. I'm surprised you don't know it.

I don't know it because it is so childishly nonsensical, i'm surprised you can proffer the theory. In a nutshell, you say Indians cannot be treated like other nations because they are exactly like other nations.(England, France) It is a Non Sequitur.

As for the children of British Loyalists, we dealt with that issue as well.

Yes we did. We refused to regard them as American citizens despite the fact that they met EXACTLY the criteria *YOU* specify is the sole criteria for citizenship. Here is an example of James Monroe noting someone is British despite the fact he was born in the United States. Letter of 1795.

A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle.

This had nothing to do with the birth of children to immigrants. It had to do with dividing Americans up after the Revolution into US citizens, or British.

You use the word "immigrant" as if it is meant to imply someone was actually coming here to be an American, yet your criteria says nothing of their intentions. Indeed, "Anchor Babies" and "Birth Tourism" can come here with no intention of being an "immigrant" and yet get American Citizenship by your foolish standard.

No. If your standard can make people citizens accidentally, it can certainly make people citizens against their will! In 1776 you weren't permitted to chose to be an English Citizen. If you met the criteria, IT WAS FORCED UPON YOU WHETHER YOU LIKED IT OR NOT!!!! If we are, as you say, following British Common law, then we must follow THIS aspect of it too. Subjectship is non-elective.

American citizenship was also non-elective in those days. This wasn't changed until the Expatriation Act of 1868.

Slaves were not citizens because they were legally regarded as property, not people. Again, this is pretty elementary and I'm surprised you don't know it.

I do not know it because it is not knowable, meaning it isn't correct. Again, I hear this same old saw repeated back at me every time this topic is mentioned. Slaves were both people and property. I know of no writers or historical figures who will claim that slaves were not people. Manumitted slaves became American citizens, then passed on citizenship the same as anyone else. You can google examples. I've posted them often enough already.

So how is it that the children of Free blacks were citizens but the children of bound blacks were not? Why does the "born on the soil" not apply to slaves, but applied to free Blacks? It's because people cannot pass on a characteristic of citizenship which they do not possess themselves. As Slaves were never permitted to naturalize, they could not be citizens, nor could their children.

Even if they were born on the soil, as your sole criteria states.

The Supreme Court was clear that if a person was born in America before or immediately after the Revolution, he or she had the right to choose American citizenship upon reaching adulthood.

And what Supreme court decision was this? My understanding is that expatriation was not legal until the expatriation act of july 27,1868. Someone is misinformed. Prior to this time, Expatriation was NOT ELECTIVE. You were REQUIRED to be a citizen of the nation with the stronger claim to you. Check your English law! Ask the King!

So your claim that the COMPLETELY HISTORICAL AND ACCEPTED UNDERSTANDING of natural born citizen fails to account for these various groups of people is simply and completely false.

There you go again, repeating the claim that just because you think so (or more accurately don't understand something) the opposing argument is false.

Just like your claim that it ever took two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen.

And once more you repeat the assertion that people are wrong because *YOU* say so.

"There you go again."