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.
yes very clear English you have not researched the subject you are discussing
Its a slam dunk.
who are you trying to kid? yourself? certainly not freepers.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1130 Page 8 of 69
UNCLASSIFIED (U)
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Question. Can/are babies born on USA soil to illegal aliens be subjects who are ‘.. subject to the jurisdiction...’ of the USA, para phrasing 14th Amendment, if the baby is taken back and raised in the mother’s country?
At the time of the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts we were in what became known as the "undeclared war witih France." The concern was on the part of the Federalists with what they saw as an invasion of Frenchmen bent on undermining our republic.
Here are some links where you can find out about these events and the attitudes of the era which led to the Alien and Sedition Acts:
http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter7section2.rhtml
http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp
http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-alien-and-sedition-acts.html
http://www.firstamendmentstudies.org/wp/alien.html
http://www.enotes.com/alien-sedition-acts-1798-reference/alien-sedition-acts-1798
http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter07/alien.cfm
In the fourth linked site above you can see where John Marshall was among those sent to France by John Adams, as a prominant Federalist, to try and resolve matters without success. Given the popular sentiment against France at that time because of its undeclared war upon us, it scarcely seems that Marshall would have given the recogntion that he did to Vattel and the law of nations in his opinion in The Venus decision in 1814 that he did and his recognition of the law of nations as heeded smong the founders in matters of citizenship if he had known (and he certainly would have known) that the presidential eligibility phrase was derived from English common law rather than the law of nations. As you can see if you read these articles that are linked the Alien and Sedition Acts, quite apart from being totally unrelated to the presidential eligibility question, were grossly unconstitutional and John Adams' support of them in particular became popularly perceived as overbearing and arrogant and vioilative of the Constitution and indeed led to free speech rights as we know them today as the Republicans rose to victory in reaction.
Jefferson and Madison it is to be noted did not join in the popular revulsion against the French which John Adams used to his political advantage. And Washington himself, who briefly came out of retirement duing this period to assume again the duties of Commander-in-Chief, it is known, was well familiar with Vattel. Indeed he never returned to the New York public library the copy of Vattel's Law of Narions that he took out of the library in New York when he was there. It was discovered years later among Washington's books and papers.
That said, there is some possible support in what the judges said in Calvin's Case for the idea that a person born abroad of parents who were a) British subjects, and b) in the service of the King (e.g, Ambassadors, soldiers on assignment, etc.) would be subjects born (subjects by nature) and not subjects made (subjects by law or political decree.) But you can't use any Act of Parliament to prove that.
It is important to note that the British term "natural born subject" is not any sort of analog for the American term "natural born citizen." Instead, the correct analogies are that "natural born subject" = "citizen," "subject made" = "naturalized citizen" and "subject born" = "natural born citizen." Again, as I concluslive demonstrated in the my essay (referenced above.)
But what matters is that the Founders consciously rejected not just British common law in general, but British notions of citizenship specifically. That also is fully documented in my essay.
Finally, consider this excerpt from my essay:
In addition to the debates at the Constitutional Convention, John Jay's letter to General Washington, and the text of the Constitution itself, there is also the testimony of Founder and historian David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815,) who was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolutions first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.In 1789 (the year after the Constitution was ratified,) Dr. Ramsay published an essay entitled "A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen," a very important and influential essay on defining a natural born Citizen. In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the original citizens were and then defined the natural born citizens as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, [c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens . Id. at 6. He added that citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring . Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776 . Id. at 6.
Based on Dr. Ramsay's definition of "natural born citizen," there can be no doubt why it was necessary to include the time-limited Constitutional exception that permitted those who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted to be President. Without that exception, those who would have qualified as natural born citizens, and so been Constitutionally eligible to be President, would have been no older than 12 years of age in 1788.
Given Dr. Ramsay's position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined natural born Citizen. Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born Citizen and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents.
I have never been a “subject”.
Neither of my parents were “subjects” to England or any other nation.
Blackstone was an English Jurist & Judge. Yes, he was an authority on English Law. Not US law, and they are not the same.
This is not as simple as you suggest. And I do not have the time today to find you the reference material to support what I said.
It was very clear. I was giving an opinion.
However, the FAM you’ve cited even says that the use of natural born in the 1790 law DOES SEEM to imply that a child born overseas to US parents is a natural born citizen for purposes of presidential qualifications.
Otherwise, it would not say “does not necessarily imply”. “Does not necessarily imply” means that the weight is on the side of “does imply.”
If it did NOT imply, then it would have said, “does not imply”.
So, the Blackstone law book DOES actually say that children born to overseas citizens ARE natural born citizens. This is in line with ancient law that says (postliminium) a person’s rights are not lost simply by being overseas.
You really have no leg to stand on rollingstone. It’s time to give it up.
By your interpretation “dead terrorist” Yemeni Anwar al Awlaki’s anchor baby children are more qualified for the presidency than is Ted Cruz. A strict interpretation of the blackstone interpretation applied in both directions would deny that opportunity to Awalaki’s anchor baby kids.
Anchor baby laws say they are US citizens at birth by virtue of being born here.
Read the other quotes in the article, and then go to the record yourself. The Founders used British law as the basis for much of our law. It makes sense. It’s the law they had and knew.
“Sufferage” The proper reference to deal with reversing the common law principle of coverture. Well done.
Perhaps you could favor us with some of the comments from those in the first congress to which you refer with the citations to the Congressional Record so that we can place them in proper context and analyze their relevance.
And this 1790 law says simply that being in a foreign country does not deprive one of legal standing as a citizen in his own country. That’s long been recognized, and long before Blackstone.
So, the principle you mention, “being born of citizens” is preserved. Since being overseas does not deprive one of his rights, then the passing by right and by blood to any children born overseas is preserved.
Therefore, the children born overseas to US citizens are themselves natural born citizens. Stated directly so in the 1790 law and fully in keeping with all other British and American law on the matter.
“legalese text from past eras”
I’ve got one of those. They call it the Bible. It’s so old-fashioned. Some people even think you need to follow it, but us modren folks know better ‘cause we’ve got the internet.
Will there be anything left of this country for Ted Cruz to lead when Obama is finished with it?
I agree.. He is no more eligible than the current poser.
However it demonstrates the Founders’ original thinking on the issue.
I have posted actual quotes and commentary with absolutely minimal comments of my own.
I did provide their comments from the congressional record. The link is below:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships8.html
...and failure to understand that fact should probable disqualify anyone from being taken seriously regarding the subject.
you are very late to this party and apparently have an agenda and are trying to work “facts” to your agenda. I suggest you search FR on the subject or go back 3-5 years and read my posts or others on the subject
as a very good lawyer once told me a little knowledge of the law can be a dangerous thing...
US law does not follow Blackstone or
English law to the nth degree, and in fact Louisiana state follows Napoleonic law did you know that?
Maybe you should call up the State Department and tell them its a slam dunk!
regards
Thank you for posting the stuff in the OP that you did.
But all bets were off when I read the part about the free white person in Congress's An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
"That any Alien being a free white person, ..."
At least they weren't expressively sexist. (sarc)
I don't expect patriots to have any more control over who the Progressive Movement nominates as Republican presidential candidate for 2016 elections than they did in previous elections. That's why I've said in related threads that I will reluctantly help to support Cruz if Obama guard dog Fx News selects him as Republican candidate.
I don't like Cruz because he doesn't reference speciific constitutional statutes any more than Sarah Palin does, corrections welcome. Both Palin and Cruz are popular with patriots because they speak constitutionally-sounding conservative platitudes which appeal to Constitution-ignorant patriots.
Again, I'll support whichever "conservative" candidate that Fx News nominates.
And if patriots would get their acts together and elect a Congress controlled by a conservative supermajority by 2016 then it wouldn't matter who got elected president. This is because a Congress controlled by a supermajority can override presidential vetoes under the Constitution's Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I.
You make a hell of a lot of stew from a single oyster, pal.
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.