Replies

“The law is not determined by wingnuts on the internet.”
Were the ones who wrote the Naturalization Act of 1790 wingnuts???

You are a wingnut. What you say is wacko dingbatism. Were the Framers who repealed the Act of 1790 in 1795 wingnuts?

You still think you are arguing with me, but you are arguing with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which defines what a natural born citizen is by the people who wrote the Constitution.

You remain unable to quote the definition of natural born citizen which is nowhere to be found in the Act of 1790.

I am not arguoing with you. You are an idiot. I am burying your bullcrap. You are helping me demonstrate how idiotic your position is. You may earn a participation prize.

I see you still, still avoid the Act of 1790 with its definition of a natural born citizen about like a vampire running from the rising sun.

I QUOTED the Act of 1790 in its entirety at #318, including the sidenotes, and challenged you to quote the nonexistent definition of natural born citizen. You still haven't been able to find it. You do have a vivid imagination though.

Again, again, I was taught that all my life, including college, my mother said that was what she was taught. How could generations of Americans be so wrong. How could histoy professors with doctorates get it so wrong.

Sounds like the folks the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of in Buck v. Bell.

You remind me of the McCain birther case filing in Robinson v. Bowen et al, CAND (28 Aug 2008) Doc 27, page 4, footnote 2:

According to the plaintiff, Ambassador Keyes believes that any citizen of the United States born through natural procreative means (but not one born by caesarean section) is a “natural-born citizen” eligible to hold the Office of President.

You exhibit the same sort of stellar intellect coupled with great conviction. I thought the lunacy would end after 2008 but nope, it's 2023 and the loonies are still at it.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

Say it along with John Jay. A "natural born citizen." Say it to yourself over and over, and stress the word born.

"natural born citizen"
"natural born citizen"
"natural born citizen"

“Were the Framers who repealed the Act of 1790 in 1795 wingnuts?”

Now, now, don’t get carried away with your hysterical venom and try to distract from the issue.

Congress, under the Constitution, has the right to fashion immigration law.

The fact that they changed it has absolutely nothing to do with the inclusion of the term natural born into the Constitution. I cite it merely because it contains the supposedly never defined term of what constitutes a natural born citizen.

“You remain unable to quote the definition of natural born citizen which is nowhere to be found in the Act of 1790.”

Well, here it is:

“And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens...”

You see??? The children of citizens... “The children of citizens...shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

I know you are blinded by hysteria, for some reason, but any other person in the country would recognize a direct definition of a natural born citizen. That is why generations of Americans were taught just that.

By the way, Wikipedia use to have that included in their entry of the Act, but they don’t anymore. Wonder why?

Now -— Acknowledge the Act of Naturalization of 1790.

I don’t know why you keep posting the letter from Washington. He was asking for only natural born citizens in his administration. Not just citizens, natural born citizens.