You said. ‘The first naturalization act in 1790 conveyed citizenship to children of US citizens born abroad.’
How you conveniently ignore this -
James Madison was on the House Committee that wrote the 1795 Act that REPEALS the 1790 Act and removed NBC status from those foreign born to a US citizen parent ever since.
Congress had a chance in 2004 to reinstate NBC status to those foreign born to a US citizen parent, but did not.
‘Natural born citizen’ is a special citizenship status referred to only once in the constitution for the presidential requirement. How convenient it is for you to break it into 3 words to be interpreted individually the way you wish.
By your own definition/interpretation - a child born to US citizen parent(s) in Iran has his/her US citizenship conveyed to him/her by nature (i.e. parent(s)), therefore he/she is a nbc of USA;
According to the ‘birthright’ theorists, he/she is a nbc of Iran!
So this child is nbc of USA and nbc of Iran?????
Who is making it complicated? YOU and the birthright theorists!
It is simple -
A child born in USA to 2 USA citizen parentS can only be natural born citizen of USA! He/she can not be citizen or nbc to any other countries! And nothing can change his/her USA NBC STATUS!
“How you conveniently ignore this - James Madison was on the House Committee that wrote the 1795 Act that REPEALS the 1790 Act”
How conveniently you ignore that the act was repealed, not overturned by the Supreme Court. It was a lawful act. Madison NEVER said otherwise. NO other founder ever said otherwise. The 1795 act was also repealed, and the one after that, and the one after that.
“Congress had a chance in 2004 to reinstate NBC status to those foreign born to a US citizen parent, but did not.”
Citizens can only be one of two things: natural born or naturalized. The acts do not have to label them “natural born” any more than “naturalized”. The issue revolves around whether they are a foreigner. Naturalization is ALWAYS conferring citizenship on a foreigner.
“’Natural born citizen’ is a special citizenship status referred to only once in the constitution for the presidential requirement. How convenient it is for you to break it into 3 words to be interpreted individually the way you wish.”
Convenient AND accurate. It is not rocket science. It is simple language. The founders chose NOT to use legal terms in Latin for a reason. It is not interpreted as I wish, but simply as it is.
Great Britain had three classes of subjects: naturalized, natural born, and royalty. Only royalty could ever become king. Our nation followed the natural law described by Vattel in the Law of Nations. Citizenship “naturally” is conveyed from parents to their children. In Great Britain, place of birth was paramount. So even those born in British colonies were subjects of the crown.
But our laws are in contrast to Great Britain’s. The term “subject” is based on the rights of the king. The term “citizen” is based on the rights of the individual. Natural born subjects were subjects “naturally” due to the jurisdiction of the king which extended to colonies. In contrast, citizenship has to do with the rights and protections of the persons who are governed by their consent. Children are special cases because they cannot consent. Their parents consent for them. The citizenship of children naturally follows that of their parents.
Dual citizenship has been an issue for thousands of years. And the possibility of being a dual citizen at birth has also been an issue for thousands of years. Ultimately, according to the philosophy of our founders which was based on the Law of Nations, it is within the purview of the legislature to establish rules of citizenship and immigration. We cannot dictate what Iran does. Iran cannot dictate what we do. We can, however, require giving up foreign ties to become citizens, hold office, etc.
Check out the legal arguments for the war of 1812. Great Britain attempted to dictate that British-Americans could not fight on the side of the US in that war. Congress passed a law requiring all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens. See the text here:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=008/llhj008.db&recNum=663
Great Britain’s attempt to draft British-Americans to serve in their navy was a provocation that led to this war. If the founders accepted the Jus soli definition of natural born subject then Madison would not have included it in the list of reasons for being in a state of war with Great Britain.
“So this child is nbc of USA and nbc of Iran?”
Citizenship is conveyed naturally by the parents, not by the place of birth. Whether a child born in Iran could be a natural born citizen of the US depends on the law at the time. However, to be clear, natural born citizenship is a legal construct. Our laws and Constitution have no bearing at all in Iranian law, or the laws of nations in general. Congress DOES have jurisdiction to “define and punish... Offenses against the Law of Nations” though.