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.
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 are going to have to get more specific before I can understand what you mean well enough to respond to it.
If you don't understand the significance of the term usage three years before its usage in the Constitution, I doubt I have the skill to explain it to you in a manner you would understand. I will leave you to your Law of the Imagination™. That reveals all like a magic eight-ball.
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.
So, perhaps a majority of persons born in Massachusetts are not citizens, and their children are not citizens, and they are just a bunch of non-citizen non-aliens. The horror!
1790 Naturalization Act made no citizens. Massachusetts naturalization did not make citizens. Direct naturalization by the legislature did not make an individual a citizen. And if they were pretend citizens, and you do not recognize jus soli, their children were pretend citizens, down through the generations until the present time. Talk about voter fraud.
[DiogenesLamp #330] "natural born citizen" is an act of God
I seem to recall making a natural born citizen and hearing oh god, oh god.
Now if two naturalized fake citizens engaged in an act of god, would the product of that divine act inherit fake citizenship?
Would the child of two pretend citizens acquire birthright citizenship via jus soli?
What is the purpose of naturalization if it does not make any citizens? Is it just so the subject can pretend to be a citizen?
For a presidential candidate, does it matter if his parents are real or pretend citizens?
This Law of the Imagination™ is entertaining, if nothing else.
[DiogenesLamp #364] 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."
What does it take to for a sovereign state to make one a citizen of that sovereign state? Hypothetically, would a declarative statement such as, "is hereby declared to be a citizen" do it? In the Law of the Imagination™, what would be the magic words?
Were there any words that a free, sovereign and independent pre-Constitution state could use to naturalize a person into a citizen of said state?
Prior to the Constitution, all States were, by the terms of the Articles, free, sovereign and independent. Naturalization was a State function, each with its own set of rules. Does the Law of the Imagination™ consider all pre-Constitution naturalizations null and void?
As the State was the sovereign, what higher power prevented the sovereign State from naturalizing one of its residents into a citizen of the State?