[MamaTexan]

Are you aware of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania?

I'd seen that one before, too, but your re-post allowed me to save it to my research files, so thank you!

-----

This concept of natural-born citizenship occurring only via blood-right is SO simple, and despite the fact everyone wants to point at the 1790 Immigration Act that says children 'shall be deemed natural-born' citizens, they always forget one thing.

It's STILL an Immigration Act, so it cannot MAKE anyone a natural born citizen, that is ultra vires...or beyond the legal scope & power of Man, which is why its considered a Law of Nature.

The only thing the original Act did was 'entitle' members of the Founding generation to the privileges an immunities OF natural-born citizens.

March 6, 1790
……and John Sockman, first taking and subscribing the oath of allegiance to this commonwealth before two Justices of the peace shall be deemed adjuded and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born citizens.

Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts
Top of page 510

This is the only reason they, and they alone are eligible for the president/Vice Presidents Offices despite not being 'natural-born' citizens.

------

and yes, Larry - Moe and Curly.....I knew.

(grin)

[4Zoltan]

Your quote from the March 6, 1790 Act is incorrect.

“and John Sockman, ...immunities of natural born subjects.”
is how the top of page 510 reads on the link you provided.

Was there a reason that you changed it?

[DiogenesLamp]

I'd seen that one before, too, but your re-post allowed me to save it to my research files, so thank you!

You're very welcome. I actually went so far as to read through the Report of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and cross check it with the English laws it specified were still in effect. If I recall correctly (I did this months ago) there were two English laws regarding subjects/citizens cited. One of them deals with children born over seas, and the other deals with inheritance, I think. I did NOT find a reference to the English law which declared that anyone born in the King's lands was an "natural born subject." It wasn't there.

While i'm at it, i've had this thing floating around in my saved links for awhile, and I finally decided to track it down more accurately. Apparently, according to this English Law Authority, Children born in England to Aliens were not regarded as "natural born subjects", but were regarded as "Denizens"; a different class of citizen of lesser rank than a subject.

What this tends to indicate is that the "English Common Law" which Jeff is so fond of citing is not understood to have the exact same meaning by differing English law Authorities", and it begs for this question.

If the English Law authorities are not even in Agreement that birth on the soil equals "natural born subject", then how can the "Common Law of England" be regarded as the rock solid basis upon which we wish to base our citizenship requirements?

.

As for the rest of your post:
March 6, 1790 ……and John Sockman, first taking and subscribing the oath of allegiance to this commonwealth before two Justices of the peace shall be deemed adjuded and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born citizens.

Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts Top of page 510

This is the only reason they, and they alone are eligible for the president/Vice Presidents Offices despite not being 'natural-born' citizens.

I'm going to have to look at what you are saying more closely, but if i'm getting the gist of it, it seems that a specific phrase in "naturalization act of 1790 is rather convenient, no?