Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Ron Jeremy; Scanian

It was further defined (significantly) in 1795. I’ll have to search out the historical moment, but from memory it’s something like- off shore births were given citizen status, as opposed to the natural born citizen status. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Here it is...

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

Here’s the source link:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html


1,337 posted on 01/05/2009 9:23:11 AM PST by freepersup (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | View Replies ]


To: freepersup

Right...citizens, not natural born. If we readily understand these concepts, why can’t some other folks around here? I don’t think it’s really all that complicated.


1,338 posted on 01/05/2009 10:12:09 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1337 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson