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

To: Robert DeLong
At the time the Constitution was submitted for approval, in 1787 a “natural born Citizen” was an Englishman because the thirteen colonies were all English. There were other “naturalized Citizens” as well. There are no “natural born “Citizens” in the US of A today as specified in the 1787 US Constitution that was submitted to the thirteen Colonies for approval.
38 posted on 02/05/2016 11:06:08 PM PST by Walt Griffith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Walt Griffith
Oh gee thanks for the educational information, but I knew that.

However, had that Englishman moved to another country for a number of years and his child was born in that country I doubt they would consider that child a natural born citizen. Especially if 1 of the parents had applied for citizenship in that country. I furthermore am highly doubtful that they would have considered that child a U.S. citizen.

39 posted on 02/05/2016 11:23:17 PM PST by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: Walt Griffith

The first Constitutional Convention passed Articles of Confederation in 1781.
Martin Van Buren, born the following year 1782, was the first American president.
The presidents before him can only be the American “citizens” mentioned as eligible for either offices, the presidency or vice presidency, as set forth in Article 2, Section, 1, clause 5. All of the presidents before Van Buren were born in British American colonies. All of the presidents, including and following Van Buren were born in one of the state’s of the United States of America. They were not just citizens. They were also “natural born citizens”.
See, the problem was that if the Framers had limited eligibility for both offices to natural born citizens instead of just citizens, they would have made all Americans ineligible for the offices— until an American was born in the USA.
So where does the logic lead us?
The Framers intended the term “natural born citizen” to require birth in the United States of America, making the person a citizen as well, so that a citizen might also be a natural born citizen, and a natural born citizen was a citizen who had fulfilled another condition as well.
But the legal status of citizenship did not necessarily include natural born citizenship.
Principles of parsimony, rules of construction and plain common sense lead to no other conclusion.


40 posted on 02/05/2016 11:33:31 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: Walt Griffith

As a matter of fact, if it weren’t for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28, I might even doubt his American citizenship. But of course this was well after the founders had departed this good earth, and by virtue of that he is indeed a U.S. citizen.


43 posted on 02/06/2016 12:04:40 AM PST by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | 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