What befuddles me often is how many people have difficulty comprehending the subtleties of English.
What befuddles me is how stealthily you made believe that you did not see the part about the usage of the term natural born citizen in 1784, three years before the Constitutional Convention. I take that back. You doing that does not befuddle me at all.
"Deemed, adjudged, and taken to be," mean "lets pretend."
If you say so, but let's check out a more complete quote for full context.
II. Be it enacted, by the general assembly of Maryland, That the marquis de la Fayette, and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and privileges.
So, "shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and privileges," means pretend what?
The Naturalization Act of 1790 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.”
Just asking for a friend, does the 1790 Act only state that the government would pretend that such persons are natural born citizens, that such persons are not really natural born citizens, and that such persons (e.g., McCain, Cruz) are not really eligible to be President?
Again, just asking for a friend. Does a naturalization actually create a citizen, or is it just pretend? Did William, John and George actually become a citizens? If they were only became pretend citizens, did their children inherit real or pretend citizenship?
1785. — Chapter 44.[February Session, ch. 8.]
AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM ERVING, ESQ; AND JOHN DUBALLET.
Whereas William Erving, Esq; and John Duballet, residents in Boston, in the Commonwealth aforesaid, have petitioned the General Court that they may be naturalized, and be thereby entitled to all the rights, liberties and privileges of free citizens of this Commonwealth:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the said William Erving and John Duballet, upon their taking the oaths of allegiance and abjuration required by the constitution of this Commonwealth, before two Justices of the Peace, shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, to all intents, constructions and purposes, as if they, the said William Erving and John Duballet, had been inhabitants of the territory, now the Commonwealth aforesaid, at the time of making the present form of civil government.
And it is further enacted, That the Justices before whom the same oaths shall be taken, shall return a certificate of the same into the Secretary's office; and the Secretary is hereby directed to record the same in a book to be kept for that purpose.
February 8, 1786.
General Assembly of Massachusetts179. —Chapter 47.
[January Session, ch. 19.]
AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING GEORGE WILLIAM ERVING.
Whereas George William Erving hath petitioned the General Court that he may be naturalized, & thereby become intitled to all the rights and privilidges of a free Citizen.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled and by the authority of the same that the aforesaid George William Erving taking and subscribing the oath of allegiance to this Commonwealth and the oath to support the Constitution of the United States before two Justices of the Peace quorum unus, shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be a free citizen of this Commonwealth and intitled to all the privilidges and immunities of a citizen. And be it further enacted that the Justices before whom the said George William Erving shall take and subscribe the said Oath shall return a certificate of the same into the Secretary's Office that it may be there recorded.
Approved March 9, 1793.
Perhaps the term, shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be may be boiler plate language of naturalization documents, used for years and years. Should all Massachusetts federal candidates and officeholders be investigated to determine if they are real or pretend citizens? Now you have me all befuddled.
You are going to have to get more specific before I can understand what you mean well enough to respond to it.
If you say so, but let's check out a more complete quote for full context.
...and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and privileges.
Your fuller context adds nothing of value or interest to your argument. Saying someone will be treated like and regarded as a "citizen" doesn't actually make them a citizen. It still doesn't say they are "natural born citizens."
But it would be interesting to see if this law passed by Maryland would indeed make the descendants of the Marquis de la Fayette US citizens today.
Probably wouldn't hold up, but I would jolly well like to see it tried!
The Naturalization Act of 1790 states,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Just asking for a friend, does the 1790 Act only state that the government would pretend that such persons are natural born citizens, that such persons are not really natural born citizens, and that such persons (e.g., McCain, Cruz) are not really eligible to be President?
I would guess that the governments of that era would not recognize them as sufficiently "natural born" as to allow them to be President.
Especially that part about the Father, regarding Senator Cruz. Even Wong Kim Ark court has a problem with that.
Again, just asking for a friend. Does a naturalization actually create a citizen, or is it just pretend?
It creates an adopted citizen.
Did William, John and George actually become a citizens? If they were only became pretend citizens, did their children inherit real or pretend citizenship?
Well let's look at the text and see what it says, shall we?
...upon their taking the oaths of allegiance and abjuration required by the constitution of this Commonwealth, before two Justices of the Peace, shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth
Well there you have it. "Deemed", "adjudged, and "taken to be."
"Regarded as", also works. But in this case, it's an adoption, because clearly they were not citizens before.
Perhaps the term, shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be may be boiler plate language of naturalization documents, used for years and years.
Exactly what I have been saying. All these examples are adoptions.