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.
He’s also a natural born leader!
What is your position on Rubio and Jindal? I am not saying that you, or any one else, would support them if one of them were to run, but clearly if you apply the history of case law and the constitution that both would eligible as well.
OMG...I’m almost out of popcorn!!
Cruz is.
ODumbo is.
End of story.
Yes, the other thread at 700+ posts had become unwieldy.
were both of his parents citizens of the united states when he was born? Yes or no
Obama set the precedence that it doesn’t matter.
we have actually had other presidents that were not natural born.
Natural Born Citizen is no longer a Constitutional issue. Precedent has made it irrelevant.
Hypocrisy is what will plague a Cruz run for President. Many “birthers” painted conservatives into a box on the issue. Cruz will constantly be hounded to denounce those conservatives. It could become a distraction, an opportunity at ridicule. The mistake was in how the birthers mishandled the situation. Next time ask questions, create doubt. But don’t make accusations.
Jindal is an anchor baby, born while his parents were here as students having every intention of returning to India (I believe) their native country. Jindal would have been a natural born citizen of India by our interpretation of law.
This would arguably preclude an anchor baby from being an NBC.
Rubio would be another anchor baby, but whose parents were Cuban refugees, with his mother early on pursuing citizenship in the US, and his father permanent resident status. I don’t recall if his mother had her citizenship before or after his birth. It would make a difference. That would make Rubio the child of two denizens or 1 citizen and 1 denizen, depending on the date of her citizenship.
read the quotes in the article
Unwieldy would be one word that could describe it. There are others....
Movie Theater Butter
Cue the 1500 word spam pasted-posts.
Didn’t there used to be a rule against copy/pasted spam; called it disruption??? Something like that.
This assertion is borne of a misunderstanding of American citizenship law.
It is this: American citizenship law does not now, and has never, recognized another country's citizenship law.
If a person is a U.S. citizen at birth, he is a U.S. citizen. Period. That he might also be a candidate for, say, Indian citizenship is of no moment.
At some future point, under the laws of India, he may opt for Indian citizenship. But, at that point, he loses his U.S. citizenship.
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.
A lesser tolerance for it, surely.
I’ll admit.. when I see 18 inches of legalese text from past eras..
I be a’scrollin’ right past it. Willfully ignorant of such postings.
I said “arguably”. Didn’t say I’d win the argument. :>)
the naturalization act of 1790 was repealed
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.