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

To: Diego1618
Natural born citizens (English terminology) is used to convey the French concept of the category of citizenry that is born in a country to parents who are of that country.

Yes, by one translator. Not by all. There is no inherent equivalence between "naturels, ou indigènes" and "natural born."

Naturels refers to citizens who are such by "Natural Law"...... or the natural circumstances surrounding their birth. They themselves had nothing to do with this circumstance.... so it is was classified as "naturel".

So do you agree that "citizen by birth" = "born a citizen" = "natural born citizen"?

This would be similar to speaking of indigenous folks who have claimed an area for generations. Thus....the term "Natural Born" (according to the usage in the 18th century) would mean the same as Les naturels, ou indigenes.

But, of course, the true indigenous people in the Americas were not considered citizens at all, much less natural born citizens, of the new United States. So again, there is no direct equivalence. It's one person's approximation.

At the time congress was in possession of three copies of Vattel's work (according to statements made by Benjamin Franklin) and were using the publication as a guide.

Copies in English with the "natural born" translation? Not from what I've read. Franklin could almost certainly have understood the French without need for translation.

It's unlikely that John Jay came up with this by himself and the manner in which he used it seems like it was part of the normal 18th century lexicon.

It was. As many have pointed out, the term "natural born citizen" was often used in the colonies interchangeably with the English common law term "natural born subject." It was a familiar term, but not from Vattel.

The Supreme Court has never used the term "Natural Born" in any decision that does not imply...... citizens who were born of citizen parents.

Well, that's just not accurate. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court wrote

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

182 posted on 08/16/2013 12:02:48 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Well, that's just not accurate. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court wrote:

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

Actually....the court said this:

That, in the year 1890 the said Wong Kim Ark departed for China upon a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto on July 26, 1890, on the steamship Gaelic, and was permitted to enter the United States by the collector of customs upon the sole ground that he was a "native"-born citizen of the United States.

At no place in the decision is Wong Kim Ark referred to as a Natural Born Citizen.....and is not referenced in Calvin's case 7Rep,6a.

The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382. The United States appealed to this court, and the appellee was admitted to bail pending the appeal.

The Constitutional understanding of someone born in this country of non-citizen parents is "Native Born".....not Natural born. Always has been since the signing of the document itself. That was the status of Wong Kim Ark.

184 posted on 08/30/2013 5:49:23 PM PDT by Diego1618 (Put "Ron" on the Rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | 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