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

To: Nero Germanicus
"The same way I have shown why people who claim that natural born means born to two citizen parents are also wrong."

You've never shown this.

The Framers told us what "natural born citizen" means.

The Framers in Article II distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.

The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.

We know that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are different.

Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” by parental US citizenship.

Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.

In the centuries subsequent to the 1795 Act "natural born citizens" have continued to occur.

What other persons have parental US citizenship? Quite obviously those who are not "born beyond sea", i.e. those born within the US.

The Framers deliberately distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". Congress in 1790 deliberately distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born citizen", that distinction was parental US citizenship.

118 posted on 08/05/2013 7:12:39 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]


To: Ray76

That statement was a quote from the blogger at the native and natural born citizenship explored blog. It was not a statement by me.

However, the courts have ruled that: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

James Madison, the Framer known as “The Father of the Constitution” in a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, said:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

CURRENT U.S. law states that one of the criteria to be considered a “Citizen of the United States at Birth” (as opposed to a naturalized U.S. citizen) is: “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, that any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person.”— 8 USC 1401


119 posted on 08/05/2013 8:42:47 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | 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