“Vattel’s text, read as a whole, not parsing a word here and a word there, makes the point that citizenship of the kind that the founders were requiring of a president flows not from the land, but from the allegiance and citizenship of the parents.”
Thank you!
I totally agree! My only comment is that Vattel makes the point that ALL citizenship flows “from the allegiance and citizenship of the parents.”
In the words of the 1797 translation:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights...I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
Of course, US law is and always has been totally different. We base citizenship primarily on birth location. The parents only count if the birth is outside the USA, so the Founders were NOT following Vattel.
>> “Of course, US law is and always has been totally different.” <<
.
Partially different.
We’ve had constitutionally invalid legislation from congress, and clumsey rulings from the judiciary, but fortunately the 14th ammendment upheld the article 2 requirement by letting it stand alone.
The rest can be dealt with by restoring a sound constitutional federal government in the coming election; if we fail there, its over.
He didn't say that about "ALL" citizenship. He said citizenship was necessary to perpetuate a civil society and that it needed to be accomplished through the children of citizens, specifically that children naturally follow the condition of the father (which was stated by the Supreme Court in Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor - but ignored by Gray in WKA).
Vattel clearly says "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen ..." meaning this is his opinion. This certainly is not a comprehensivie statement about ALL citizenship.
Further, Vattel acknowledges that there are LAWS that oversee the regulation of citizenship in some countries:
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.
Vattel again, puts his commentary in perspective as his personal observation:
... I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise ...
Vattel specifically cites England as a country that "naturalizes" children born of foreigners at birth:
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.The parents only count if the birth is outside the USA, so the Founders were NOT following Vattel.
Not exactly. Vattel said the laws of other countries must be followed. Your example, however, does mean the Founders were NOT inherently following English common law as described by Blackstone.
... all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception ...
The founders had to enact a section in the Naturalization Act of 1790 to do something similar, obviously because this was not universally accepted under the country's common law. You've just destroyed your own arguments yet again. Brilliant, Rogers, brilliant.