“You keep confusing what that congress actually did do, and what you wish they had done.”
I cannot, cannot make you thick-headed people understand my point.
I am not trying to persuade anyone of the present legality of the Act of 1790. That is insanity. It did not last very long at all. It was replaced, as there have been many naturalization acts over the centuries.
My point in referring to the Act of 1790 is the fact that, in clarifying points on citizenship, it incidenally DEFINES what a natural born citizen is. Can you comprehend?
Congress can pass laws regarding naturalization, but Congress cannot amend the Constitution, and the Supreme Court with its rulings cannot amend the Constitution.
There is only one time natural born citizenship is mentioned in the Constitution and as each word in the Constitution was haggled over, it was placed there because it meant something. It was not a new concept. John Jay wrote Washington a letter, dated July 25, 1797, requesting that he “provide a strong check to the admisson of foreigners into the administration of the national government and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the army not be given nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” And as the Act of 1790 spells out, the Founders were very restrictive as to what comprised a foreigner.
Again, my point is, in the language of the of Act of 1790, there is an incidental definition of the term “natural born citizen.”
I have a print-out of the Act. It is very short. It gives the rules for people to become naturalized citizens. It is very restrictive. A naturalized citzen is called a citizen of the United States. A person born of citizen parents is called a natural born citizen.
Again, the Act addresses the possiblility of a child being born overseas of citizen parents. It says they if that happens, they are natural born citizens. It doesn’t just say citizens, as in the case of aliens becoming citizens, it says natural born.
“But this conversation started with you, rightly, searching for an historical source that supported the claim that to be “natural born”, a person had to have two citizen parents at the time of his birth.”
No, I was not searching, since I have known the language of the Act of 1790 for years. It is a historical source, about as historical as it gets.
And I care not at all that you had your head up your ass and missed an historical fact in high school.
And I am not trying to convince you of anything. If someone reads the language from a historical document and refuses to admit what it says, he is certainly beyond my help.
Another question: According to that Act, how does a person, born overseas, accrue citizenship and of what type?
I don’t think you are honest enough to admit what it states.
I cannot, cannot make you thick-headed people understand my point.
Well, whose fault is that? If you can't muster a coherent explanation of your beliefs, that's on you.
My point in referring to the Act of 1790 is the fact that, in clarifying points on citizenship, it incidenally DEFINES what a natural born citizen is. Can you comprehend?
Except it doesn't do that. The lack of comprehension is not on my side; it's you reading in to the historical record what you want to find, rather than what's actually there. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
Again, the Act addresses the possiblility of a child being born overseas of citizen parents. It says they if that happens, they are natural born citizens.
And what does your source say about any requirements of citizenship status of the parents regarding the the citizenship of their child born on US soil? I'll tell you: it says nothing. Sheds no light on the question.
If someone reads the language from a historical document and refuses to admit what it says, he is certainly beyond my help.
Exactly. We agree on that point, but disagree on who's misunderstanding this particular document.
Another question: According to that Act, how does a person, born overseas, accrue citizenship and of what type?
Didn't we already cover this?
1) If a person's parents were US citizens, and their child was born overseas, that child was a "natural born citizen"
2) If a person was NOT a US citizen, or did not have a parent who was a US citizen, that congress provided a route to naturalization of that person, which extended to that individual's already living children. (We've covered this a couple of times.)
I don’t think you are honest enough to admit what it states.
There you go again with the gratuitous insults. Why are you getting all shouty? You're just mad that you've gone down a rabbit hole and it's turned out to be a dead-end.
What these debates never get to is the substance. Put aside, for the moment, reading the historical palimpsest. Just start with first principals, and decide what should the definition of "natural born" be, and who should decide? Should both parents be required to be natural born citizens? One? For how long? Would a person also have to be born within the borders of the US, or could someone born abroad to one or both parents be considered 'natural born'? And by what process could that be recognized as law? The courts aren't going to do it, and they would certainly overturn any legislative acts that tried to clarify the issue, which leaves a constitutional amendment, which seems like a rather large lift, sadly. Any ideas?