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If someone reads the language from a historical document and refuses to admit what it says, he is certainly beyond my help.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?
“Well, whose fault is that? If you can’t muster a coherent explanation of your beliefs, that’s on you.”
I am not trying to make an explanation of my beliefs. I merely quoted a document. I am not responsible for your boneheadedness.
What I want to find? The exact language is: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the Unites State, shall be sonsidered as natural born Citizens:”
Inform me. Based on that sentence, what is the definition of a natural born citizen. Does it not say that “...children of citizens of the United States... shall be considered as 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.”
My source??? The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was written by the ones who wrote the Constitution.
Well, yes, it does. “And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time os such naturalization, shall also be sonsidered as citizens of the Unites States.” If the parents were not citizens, and the child was born here, it was not a citizen. We call them anchor babies today and Trump says he will stop that because it is not really legal.
Not natural born citizens, just citizens, since they were not born here.
“Put aside, for the moment, reading the historical palimpsest.”
The document is not a palimpsest. Maybe you don’t know what a palimpsest is. The Act of 1790 is about one paragraph long and can be found all over the internet.
“Just start with first principals, and decide what should the definition of “natural born” be, and who should decide?”
It was decided centuries ago and passed down to today. You actually think that the Founders were stupid enough to put a legal term in the Constitution that no one knew exactly what it was, regarding a qualification for the highest office in the land? And, by the way, the Constitution does not define ANY of its legal terms. They use terminology understood by the people of that day and they are still being used today.
from: “Chester A Arthur, a birthplace controversey:”
“Had Hinman’s tale been true, [that Arthur’s father was British and his mother was American] Arthur would have been ineligible to run for the United States executive office. Article Two, Section One of the United States Constitution states that, “No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...”
So, Himan understood, and the American people understood, exactly what a natural born citizen was, and he manipulated the concept of a natural born citizen, that the whole country understood, to smear Arthur. He was saying his mother was a citizen, but his father was not. The truth or falsity of the charge does not matter, he was using a known concept (that was true) to try to rig an outcome.