Posted on 12/03/2023 11:31:10 AM PST by 4Runner
Although the eligibility of U.S. born citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent). Legal scholars in the field of citizenship have asserted that this common understanding and legal meaning in England and in the American colonies was incorporated into the usage and intent of the term in the U.S. Constitution to include those who are citizens at birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at everycrsreport.com ...
“Good thing, since Trumps mom was born in Scotland.”
His father was a citizen and she was also naturalized into citizenship.
“How does this fit with this theory?”
Simple. The miltary wanted men.
“There is a SCOTUS case involving a girl born in the US that defines NBC”
Why then did the Supreme Court have to rule that anchor babies were citizens, and if they are not natural born then that contradicts the headline in this article.
gaslight
+1
Legal, illegal, permanent resident, student visa, does not matter.
No foreign spice allowed.
Plain Vanilla U.S. Americans Only.
+1
gaslight
They were naturalized.
A U.S. statute can’t “definitively” define a term in the U.S. Constituion.
SCOTUS need not even give such a statute a “by your leave” before contradicting it with a holding establishing a different definition.
Two points: As John Jay pointed out, Perpetually ascribed allegiance at birth was an aspect of subjectship under England’s monarchical constitution, as it was in the American colonies both before and after the American Revolution. But federal citizenship was based, as it had always been, upon the Lockean concept of CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, befitting a republican form of government.
Secondly, as John Bingham, the author of the 14 Amendment once observed, “The Citizenship Clause of the 14 Amendment is a naturalization clause, both at birth and afterward.” Naturalized citizenship is citizenship bestowed by the state
In summary, as John Jay pointed out, the purpose of the Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural-born citizen clause was to ensure our elected president, as the commander-in-chief of all the country’s armed forces, was loyal to the Constitution and to the Republic.
Trump’s mother was naturalized before Donald was born
Your grandparents were naturalized at birth via the 14th Amendment.
I have always believed the difference between qualification for citizenship versus qualification for the presidency was that for the presidency both parents must have been born in the US. That clearly is never a requirement for mere citizenship. I don’t recall where I found that information. I don’t mean to denigrate citizenship just that I believe the bar is higher for the Presidency. To avoid foreign entanglements and influence. Or to minimize them at least.
Sure there is. At least two SCOTUS rulings. 🙄
Go read the cases you fool
Quit trying to count angels on the head of a pin
Lastly, I would point out that there is nothing natural about statutorily created citizenship, either at birth or after birth. As Michael Ramsey pointed out in his essay, “The Original Meaning of ‘Natural Born’: “In general in eighteenth-century legal language, ‘natural’ meant the opposite of provided by statute.” (natural rights, natural law, natural born)
I would also point out that in general, a general clause (i.e. Citizens of the United States at birth — 14th Amendment) can not govern a specific clause (i.e. No Person except a natural born Citizen — Art. II, I, Cl. 5) unless Congress has specifically stated via its constitutional authority that “all citizens at birth are natural born citizens” — which, in, and of itself, would be unconstitutional, as positive law cannot create natural law — the court MUST give each clause a separate legal effect.
Simply put: “While all natural born citizens are Citizens of the United States at birth, statutory Citizens of the United States at birth are not natural Citizens of the United States at birth but naturalized U.S. Citizens at birth.
Which matters not a hill of beans. In 1787, the woman's citizenship is automatically changed to American upon marriage. Women take their husband's citizenship so far as American law applied in 1787.
Only the father's citizenship matters, and you can even see this in the wording of the naturalization act of 1795 which specifically says only children born overseas to an American father are regarded as citizens.
Women did not acquire the ability to pass on citizenship until the Cable act of 1922.
And this is true. The Courts are wrong but they don't care. They don't even want to hear why they are wrong.
The Courts are ignorant dictators and happy to stay that way.
All you need to know is that Alexander Hamilton will never be the President of the United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.