“Basically it says that NO WAY can a man with a foreign born father be even a citizen, let alone a “Natural Born Citizen.””
Now, do you really believe that after the 14th Amendment, that a man with a foreign born father cannot be a citizen?
Now, do you really believe that after the 14th Amendment, that a man with a foreign born father cannot be a citizen?
Okay, i’ll assume you did that accidentally, and not on purpose. You took the quote out of context. I was referring to the meaning and zeitgeist which existed when the Naturalization act of 1790 was passed. In case you missed it, that preceded the 14th amendment by what? 78 years?
So now that I pointed this out, do you really want to ask me this anachronistic question in an attempt to refute the meaning and intent of an act in 1790 by referring to an Amendment in 1868?
Apart from that, YEAH. In 1790, The Laws of various nations made the offspring of fathers from those nations into Subjects of those nations. So if you had a Foreign born Father, (that had not naturalized) the children were recognized as subjects of the Father’s nation. (I say subjects, because we were the only country in the world not ruled by a monarchy. )