“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.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790 defines a natural born citizen as one born of citizen parent. Americans have been taught that for centuries, and all of a sudden people pretend that it never existed.
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.
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.
You're probably referring to this part:
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"
That congress didn't address the question of the status of persons born within the limits of the United States to foreign born parents. Other parts of the law that you're citing skirt the issue:
"and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States."
So the living children of a naturalized citizen who themselves were under the age of 21 years also became citizens by dint of their father's naturalization.
What that congress didn't address was the question of the country of birth of the children. This can, and has, been used to support both sides of this perennial debate.
One thing is clear though. That first congress did think it important to clarify that the children of an American citizen born abroad were to be legally considered "natural born citizens". But all of this got effectively tossed out the window with a SCOTUS case in 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. That case hashed out exactly the same "debate" that goes on at FR every four years, regarding the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction". The losing side in that case took the same view as many posters here, but it's not like the court hasn't had the discussion.
The added special sauce that gets tossed into the mix is to wonder if there's some undecided ambiguity about the meaning of "natural born citizen", apart from "a citizen who is a citizen and never needed to be naturalized because he was always a citizen".
No one has been able to come up with a compelling argument for that, and it's certainly not for lack of trying. It's a nice distracton on a lazy Sunday afternoon, though.
It also limited access to U.S. citizenship to white immigrants.....
The Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed and superseded the 1790 Act.
The 1795 Act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1798,
The 1798 Act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802,
Then there was the Naturalization Act of 1870
And the legislative list goes on..........
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum and all you're citing is bloggers who make stupid claims that are unsubstantiated by constitutional law.
Since you and the other idiots are so sure of yourselves, you shouldn't have any problem convincing the US Supreme Court......Go for it dude!