Posted on 09/02/2013 9:58:26 AM PDT by xzins
Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that 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; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
From various members of the 1st Congress debating the 1790 Naturalization Act. (Note Jackson's use of Blackstone, and the other's use of British law.):
Mr. Jackson.--It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not modify or confine our terms of naturalization; that we could not admit an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by the reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone, I, 10.--"Naturalization," says he, "cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King's legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it." So that here we find, in that nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely necessary to be pursued in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners. Representative James Jackson, Georgia, Officer during Revolution in State Militia, delegate to provincial Congress and to State Convention.
Mr. Burke....The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.Aedanus Burke, South Carolina, who had been an officer in the Continental Army.
Mr. Hartley observed, that the subject was entirely new, and that the committee had no positive mode to enable them to decide; the practice of England, and the regulations of the several States, threw some light on the subject, but not sufficient to enable them to discover what plan of naturalization would be acceptable under a Government like this. Some gentlemen had objected to the bill, without attending to all its parts, for a remedy was therein provided for some of the inconveniences that have been suggested. It was said, the bill ought to extend to the exclusion of those who had trespassed against the laws of foreign nations, or been convicted of a capital offence in any foreign kingdom; the last clause contains a proviso to that effect, and he had another clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens, born out of the United States.Rep Thomas Hartley, Pennsylvania, Continental Army Officer, Delegate to Provincial Congress, Delegate to Ratification Convention
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; 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. 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: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
I get it. You’re saying the Constitution is irrelevant. You and Obama agree.
being born on the soil, as per American law, allows the baby native born citizenship. of course, since the baby’s parents are both citizens of mexico (for example), the baby would also be able to claim mexican citizenship
therefore, the baby can be a citizen of TWO countries
this would make the kid a native born American... but not natural born
a natural born citizen is one that is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES
Madison commented in his presidency that children born to citizens (citizen father automatically bestowed citizenship to the mother via marriage in that era) at sea or temporarily abroad were to be considered ‘natural born’.
The idea is that American citizens maintain a ‘domicile’ on US or US controlled/possessed soil and are able to maintain a ‘residence’ abroad. For purposes of immigration, ‘domicile’ and ‘residence’ are legally distinct terms.
It is clear the fact that Cruz was born in Canada does not render him ineligible to be president because his mother was there for work, not for immigration to Canada. In other words, her domicile was in the USA while her residence was temporarily in Canada.
Where Ted Cruz gets hung in this is that it was not his father who was an American citizen at the time of his birth nor was his father automatically bestowed with citizenship via marriage to his citizen mother.
What is needed is a law with retroactive and prospective provisions that clearly address the distinction of ‘natural born’ versus ‘citizen by birth’.
It was John Jay’s letter to General George Washington that requested a higher bar for the presidency when the Constitution was being drafted and resulted in ‘natural born’ meaning ‘second generation’ as a requirement for the presidency.
John Jay was clearly concerned that a President as Commander-in-Chief must be loyal and have allegiance to the United States because a person with divided loyalties and muddled allegiance would have command of the Army and hence would be in a position to become a tyrant.
I am persuaded that Barack Obama has divided loyalties and muddled allegiance to the United States.
But with Cruz, it is clear he is American through and through in spirit, loyalty and allegiance.
actually, that's British law. it's called 'British by descent'... which is why i'm able to pick up my UK passport if so desired
in order to insure their child is a natural born citizen, both parents would have to renounce any non-US citizenship and become US citizens before the child's birth.
otherwise the child would be a native born US citizen ... AND ... a Swiss citizen (using your example, tho i'm pretty sure the swiss don't see it that way)
The very phrasing used screams Blackstone and British law. And the comments of representatives in the first congress clearly indicate British law and Blackstone.
It’s a slam dunk.
Link to source that documents accompanying recognition please.
During Suffrage the passage of citizenship to ones child included women.
I think my response was in clear English.
“If you are a U.S. citizen at birth, you are a U.S. citizen — regardless of how many other nationalities and citizenships you might be eligible for.”
You are correct about being a “U.S. citizen at birth” BUT, being a U.S. citizen at birth does not mean that you are Article II eligible to the presidency. For that, you have to ALSO meet the requirements of “natural born Citizen”. Born in the country by two citizen parents.
I CAN’T BELIEVE that anyone can believe that someone BORN in a foreign country, is eligible to be president. This just shows the IGNORANCE of some otherwise intelligent people. The Constitution is clear (having removed “citizen” and replaced it with “natural born Citizen”). The framers were CLEAR about the presidency “devolving to a foreigner”.
Get REAL, Cruz is NOT eligible, there is no doubt on this.
Someone I know told me that Ireland claims or allows Irish citizenship for the children and grandchildren of their citizens who deny previous citizenship and accept U.S. citizenship. Question, when naturalized you do have to deny or something to that effect your former citizenship, don’t you? Anyway because this friends parents are naturalized U.S. citizens from Ireland, both her and her siblings along with all of their children are either considered Irish citizens or eligible for a “dual” Irish citizenship. Question, Do dual citizens pay taxes to both of the nations they pay allegiance to?
Cruz is a natural born citizen.
The truth is that a mother is an easier proof of lineage than is a father. I believe that “Jewishness” is passed through Mothers and not Fathers.
Cruz is a natural born citizen if Obama guard dog Fx News decides that he is a natural born citizen. (sarcasm, but probably what we can expect)
Also natural born is a job qualifier. All citizens are equal, yet those whose have no other nation laying claim to their allegiance are allowed to be Commander in Chief because they have no ties legal or symbolic to any other nation.
assuming ireland is ok with offering citizenship to your friends, they would be able to hold dual citizenship... US and Ireland.
while living in the US, they would pay only US taxes.
if they moved to Ireland, they would pay Irish taxes ... AND ... US taxes.
the US is the only country in the world to require its citizens pay taxes no matter where they reside (while ignoring the illegals in the country sucking down resources... total bullsh*t)
to avoid having to pay the absurd taxes while living overseas, a US citizen would have to renounce their citizenship (more utter bullshit)
Sten says it best :
‘you’re a natural born citizen if there are no alternatives.’
Obumbo - can be British, or Kenyan, or USA
Cruz - can be Cuban, Canadian, USA
Jindal - can be Indian, USA
etc etc.
Almost all USA presidents, except Chester Arthur, had/have no alternatives - they were/are citizens of USA only, they were born in USA to USA citizen parents, they were/are natural born citizens.
Look at obumbo’s own account of his citizenship (he has lots of alternatives)-
first he claimed to be Kenyan, then he claimed to be USA.
Anyway, he admits to the whole world that he was born to a British citizen (later Kenyan) father. If you go by the British laws on citizenship - any child born to a British subject father anywhere in the world is a natural born citizen of Britain! So obumbo is a natural born citizen of Britain; NOT a natural born citizen of USA!
USA citizenship laws are different from those of the Brits (why do you think they split from Britain?)
A natural born citizen of USA cannot be also a Natural born citizen of Britain!
read the Blackstone quote.
And the children of citizen 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
Citizens is plural. The Constitution stated that only a natural born citizen could be President, in order to prevent any possibility of divided loyalty.
So, you’re saying that you agree with anchor babies having full US Citizenship. Those who say that don’t think that what they’re saying results in Anwar al Awlaki’s US born kids running for the presidency.
Accepting anchor babies means Anwar’s kids born in the USA are more NBC than is Ted Cruz.
So is children. "Children of citizens" is referring to the entire body of cases. That interpretation is better because the line you quoted goes on to say that only the father has to have been resident in the USA.
That is one parent.
It said: "...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; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.