Natural Born Citizens

Library of Congress ^ | 1783 | rustbucket

[rustbucket]

I ran across a couple of documents relative to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, a concept that was a matter of serious discussion in recent presidential elections.

The first of these were 1783 notes by Thomas Jefferson on the meaning of "natural subjects", i.e., when people fit the definition of natural subjects of a country and when they did not. Jefferson’s notes were in part to answer the status of a lady’s son with respect to whether he could inherit property in England. The second item I found was a 1790 US law that defines people born outside of United States as natural born citizens under certain conditions.

Here are Jefferson's extensive notes [Link ] I had searched on ‘natural subject’ which the search results put in bold. Underlines below are mine. I added spaces between lines to help readability.

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 21 October 1, 1783 - October 31, 1784
Thomas Jefferson's Notes

[December ? 1783] (1)
Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?

Natural subjects can inherit--Aliens cannot.
There is no middle character--every man must be the one or the other of these.

A Natural subject is one born within the king's allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person's being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance.
An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.

The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.

A treaty with a foreign nation where the king's powers are competent to it as in this which is a case of peace & war, supersedes all law.
If the king's powers were not competent before, the act of parliament of 1782 has made them so. An American citizen adult cannot inherit then.

Qu.2. The father a British subject; the son in America, adult, and within the description of an American citizen, according to their laws. Can the son inherit?

He owes no allegiance to Great B. The treaty acknowleges he does not. But allegiance is the test of a natural subject. Were he to do an act here which would be treason in a British subject he could not be punished should he happen to go there.
He owes allegiance to the states. He is an alien then and cannot inherit.

Obj. The state of the father draws to it that of the son.

Ans. In Villenage it does, but in no other case at the Com- [mon] law. Thus a Natural subject having a son born in a foreign state; the son was an alien at the Com. law. The stat. 25.E.3. st.2. first naturalized him if both parents were, at the time of his birth, natural subjects; & 7.Ann.c.5. & 4.G.2.c.2l. where the father alone was.

So an Alien in England having a child born there, that child is a natural subject. A denizen purchases land. His children born before denization cannot inherit, but those born after may. The state of the father then does not draw to it that of the child, at the Com. law.

But does it by the statutes? No, for here are statutes first making the son born abroad a natural subject, owing allegiance. Then comes a treaty of peace wherein the king absolves him from his allegiance & declares him an Alien. This then supersedes the authority of the statute.

It is said 2.P.W.124. 1.B1.357. that natural allegiance cannot be cancelled but by act of parl[iament].(2) But surely national treaties supersede acts of parl. The oath of allegiance took it's origin from the feudal oath of fealty. But as the fealty of the vassal could be relinquished by the lord, so can the allegiance of the subject by the king. If he withdraws his protection allegiance is gone. But he can withdraw his protection without consulting parliament.

Qu. Were the k[ing]'s subjects in France aliens?

If they were not, did they not become so when given up?
Must they not of course become so when taken from him by a superior power?

Qu. 3. The father a British subject. The son as in Qu. 2. but an infant. Can he inherit?

1st. by the Common law.
We have seen before that the state of the father does not draw to it as an accessory that of the son where he is an adult.

But by the common law.
Denization may be 1. by parliamt. 2. by letters pat[ent]. 3. by Conquest. As if the k[ing] & his subjects conquer a kingdom, they become denizens of kingdom conquered. Calvin's ca. 6.a.
If an alien have issue born within the k[ing]'s obedience, the issue is a natural only: ib. This excludes enemies possess[in]g a town &c. ib.
Abjuratur still owes allegiance because he may be restored. 9.b. So an outlaw. ib. 14.a.
The law of nature is part of the law of Engld. 12.b.

If a noble of another country come to Engld., he sues by his proper name, not by that of his nobility, because on a plea in abatemt that he is not noble, it is not tried by jury but by the record of parliamt. 15.a.

Ambassadors having children born in foreign nation, they are naturl subjects by the com. law. 18.a.

While the kings of Engld. had possessions in France, those born during such possession were naturl subjs. of Engld. 19.a. So is it now of Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Man, Alderney, &c.

If a woman alien marrieth a subject she shall not be endowed. 25.a. An alien cannot be ten[ant] by the courtesy. ib.

If Engld & Scotld. sh[oul]d by descent be divided & governed by several kings, those born under one sovereign while the realms were united would remain natural subjects & not aliens. 27.b.

He cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligiance of a king of another kingdom. 18.a.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MS (DLC: Jefferson Papers). In the hand of Thomas Jefferson and endorsed by him: "Alien. British & American." Jefferson, Papers (Boyd), 6:433-35.

1 Jefferson apparently drafted these undated notes on British and American citizenship and alienage during this period not only because he was studying the treaty of peace but also because he had received a specific request for information from Elizabeth House Trist concerning the status of her son Browse, whose father was a British officer. Jefferson's response to Mrs. Trist has not been found, but for his record of it see ibid., p. 418.

For an analysis of American ideas of allegiance and the impact of the American Revolution and the treaty of peace on the rights and duties of citizenship, see James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1979), chapter 7.

2 Jefferson's references are to P[eere] W[illiams'] Reports, 2:124, and Bl[ackstone's] Commentaries, 1:357, although the latter is in error, for Blackstone's discussion of the cancellation of natural allegiance by act of parliament only is actually found at page 374, not 357, of Book one of his Commentaries. See William Peere Williams, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Chancery....3 vols. (London, 1740-49); William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England. 4 vols. (Oxford, 1770); and Catalogue of the Library of Thomas Jefferson, comp. by E. Millicent Sowerby, 5 vols. (Washington: Library of Congress, 1951-59), 2:204- 5, 228-29.

Here is the 1790 law of the United States that mentions/defines natural born citizens. “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790) [Link, my emphasis below].

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.

[philman_36]

Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country.

ALIENS! Believe your own reference, not me.

[Lurkinanloomin]

One of the conditions of citizenship is renouncing previous citizenship, so I was wrong in my previous answer.
Italy would have no claim on you.

Born here of citizen parents is the standard.

[philman_36]

taxcontrol - No one has said a thing about repealing the NBC clause.

Godebert - You think you can do an end run around the Constitution by having congress change the definition of natural born Citizen.

It's worse than that. taxcontrol wants to supplant the definition and understanding of what a natural born Citizen is with USC 8 which would, in effect, actually make every natural born Citizen in America into an ALIEN subject to the naturalization powers granted to Congress.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I never renounced Italian citizenship. Nor did my mother or my grandfather, since they never knew they had it. The only one who renounced it was my great-grandfather, and that was after my grandfather was born. As I said, under Italian law, I already am a citizen.

Interestingly, Ronald Reagan was only one generation removed from being able to get an Irish passport. Under their law, citizenship can pass down as far as a grandchild, and Reagan was the great-grandchild of an Irish immigrant who become a citizen only after Reagan's grandfather was born.

[rustbucket]

Thanks. Interesting post. I didn’t know of the early court cases.

[taxcontrol]

You think you can do an end run around the Constitution by having congress change the definition of natural born Citizen.

Again, you are incorrect. I wan Congress to FOLLOW Article 1 Section 8 clause 4 and establish the definition of NBC - that has not yet been established.

[morphing libertarian]

I am posting someone else’s post. His name is in the top of my post.

Republicans will not take a stand. The supremes reject cases as in Obama. So out posts are so much speculative masturbation. We will be stuck with another Obama or worse in 20 or 24.

[so_real]

Agreed. All we can do is keep shining light in the darkness. Good night, FRiend!

[OIFVeteran]

Have to disagree, there are only two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. I see nothing in the constitution or any US law defining any other type of citizen.

[Lurkinanloomin]

It’s right there in Art II Sec. , clearly differentiating citizen and natural born citizen.

[DoodleDawg]

I missed birther threads.

[DiogenesLamp]

"George P. Bush is an NBC"...........No. Mother was a foreign national at the time of birth.

A quibble. In 1787, the citizenship of the mother was irrelevant. A woman acquired the husband's citizenship upon marriage. Only the father's citizenship mattered.

[DiogenesLamp]

When your great grandfather naturalized, it bestowed what is called "derivative" citizenship on all of his children. (if they were minors at the time.) Your Grandfather became a US citizen at the same time your Grandfather did. Your Grandfather was naturalized, or if born here, had 14th amendment citizenship. All his children are natural born.

[DiogenesLamp]

So what another country says about who is or is not a citizen is completely irrelevant. Some here don’t agree.

Those people are wrong. Only US law determines the status of US Citizens. Italy is not the only country that provides citizenship to the descendents of their former citizens. Ireland does it too, and I believe Israel does as well.

But the US only recognizes US law in deciding who is or who is not a US Citizen. The fact that other nations allow a claim of citizenship is irrelevant.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've read through the thread, and I have noticed the same ole same ole arguments being regurgitated again and again. As usual, everyone focuses on the trees instead of the forest.

I used to research this issue quite a lot, and I believe I have figured out exactly what happened, and why so many people became confused over the years about the meaning of "natural born citizen."

But before I get into any of that, the first thing I would ask people to do is to explain why the Colonies gave up the word "Subject", and thereafter used the word "Citizen."

Why did they do this? "Subject" was the normal term for all of their history. From whence did this "Citizen" word emerge?

[rustbucket]

"Subject" was the normal term for all of their history. From whence did this "Citizen" word emerge?

Interesting question. At least the term is not "Comrade." Yet.

In your example, Thomas Jefferson probably by habit initially used the term "subject" in his draft of the Declaration of Independence since the colonists had indeed been subjects of the king. Jefferson also used the term "natural subject" in his 1783 words describing English law that I posted to start this thread. But now the colonists were going to be free of owing allegiance to a king, and they would possess rights and privileges and the ability to vote for the people in charge of their government(s). So, a term other than "subject" was appropriate.

You can find similar descriptions of "subject" and "citizen" in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary [Link].

I imagine "citizen" originally meant inhabitant of a city. From the internet [Link]:

Origin of citizen

1275–1325; Middle English citisein < Anglo-French citesein, Old French citeain, equivalent to cite city + -ain -an; Anglo-French s perhaps by association with deinzain denizen

The French also switched to the term "citizen" for describing themselves during the French Revolution when they overthrew their king.

[DiogenesLamp]

1275–1325; Middle English citisein < Anglo-French citesein, Old French citeain, equivalent to cite city + -ain -an; Anglo-French s perhaps by association with deinzain denizen

Citizen appears to be derived from "City-Denizen." Dweller in a city. In fact, I have searched Blackstone and Shakespeare, and in every case that I found, every usage of the word "Citizen" refers to city dweller, as in "Citizens of London." In fact, if you look at old English dictionary's of the time period, they say that "Citizen" means city dweller.

A dictionary of the English language. by Samuel Johnson, 1768.

Cit. [contracted from Citizen] 1. An inhabitant of a city. 2. A pert low towniman.

Citizen. f.[citoyen Fr.] A Freeman of a City. Raleigh 2. A townman; not a gentleman. Shakefp3. an Inhabitant. Dryden

"The Royal Dictionary, French and English, and English and French" 1764

Citadin, S. M. Citadine, S.F. (habitant d'ene cite) a Citizen

Citoyen, enne, S.(bourgrais, habitant d'une cite) an Inhabitant, or Freeman of a City.

I've read other dictionaries of the period, and they say the same thing. "Citizen" is originally a French word, and in the English usage of the time period meant "City Dweller." It also meant "City Dweller" in France during this time as well.

So how did this word that means "City Dweller" come to mean member of a nation state?

Here is a clue as to how this happened.

"Sense of "freeman or inhabitant of a country, member of the state or nation, not an alien" is late 14c."

Hmm. What happened in the later part of the 14th century? What caused this word that meant "City Dweller" to change so that it meant member of a nation state.?

[DiogenesLamp]

I was hoping for some commentary regarding my last message to you in this thread. Believe it or not, i’m going someplace with this, and you might find it quite interesting when you learn where this is going.

[rustbucket]

What I found when I searched a couple of days ago were comments that nation states, as such, didn't really kick off until the 1500s. At that point I stopped looking. But there were major changes in the late 1400s that perhaps led to the formation of the Renaissance.

The biggest event that happened in the 14th Century was the Black Death, the Plague. In Britain there were Plagues from 1348-1351, 1361-64, 1368, 1371, 1373-75, and 1405 [Link]. The Plagues wiped out 30 to 50% of the European population (some say as high as 60 percent). That would have had a major effect on trade, allegiances, etc.

The following article interestingly says that the population that survived were much healthier than those who lived before the Plague, as the Plague weeded out the weakest. This would have meant that the resulting population would have contained a substantially bigger proportion of mature adults (and thus a more productive population) by the end of the 14th Century than before. Link.

Here is an excellent description of what happened and the changes the Plague wrought on almost everything [Link]. In line with the increasing number of middle aged people, it also appeared to have brought about the middle class of people instead of just the nobles and the poor feudal peons/serfs.

[DiogenesLamp]

What I found when I searched a couple of days ago were comments that nation states, as such, didn't really kick off until the 1500s.

I think it began in the early 1400s, and the etymology link I posted said "late 14C" which would be around 1370.

My point in my previous message was to show that the English meaning of the word in the 1770s did not mean "member of a nation state", it meant "someone who lives in a city."

I had a theory that the usage of the word "Citizen" came straight from Vattel, because the word wasn't commonly used in English of that time period, and when it was, it didn't mean what it does today. It occurred to me that the very usage of the word "citizen" implies a French source, and of course, Vattel was the most prominent French source from which the word could have emerged.

But then I learned that France didn't use the word "Citizen" to mean "member of the nation" back then either. In France of the 1770s, the word also meant "City Dweller." In France, the normal way of referring to a member of the Nation was "Sujet", which translates to "Subject" in English.

Yes, the French called their people "Subjects" too.

So I pondered the fact that Vattel was Swiss, and he wrote his "Le droit des gens" in French, but he used the word "Citizen" to mean member of a Nation. Well, French was one of the official languages of Switzerland, and it appears that the usage of "Citizen" to mean "member of a nation" had been going on for awhile in Switzerland, because they had thrown off Monarchy back in the 14th century. They were a "Republic." Since members of a Republic could no longer call themselves "Subjects" because they had no King, what could they call themselves?

Well looking at the history of Switzerland, you realize it started out as a collection of 8 Cities. In effect, every Swiss was a member of one of these 8 cities which associated with each other as a loose alliance. Thus each Swiss was more often than not, a "citizen", or dweller in a city.

I find a reference in the Swiss "Priest's Charter" or "Charte des prêtres" to this word "Citizen" being expanded to mean people who do not actually live in cities.

"N'importe qui, étranger ou indigène, hôte ou citoyen d'une ville ou d'un pays, quel que soit son titre, doit pouvoir voyager dans tous nos districts et territoires, et aussi dans ceux des gens qui dépendent de nous, sans danger aucun pour sa personne et ses biens, et nul ne doit l'inquiéter, l'arrêter ou lui causer un dommage.

The highlighted words mean "Citizen of the city or of the country."

It blurs the distinction between living in a city, and living in the country, and I believe it is ground zero for how the word "Citizen" came to mean "member of a nation" instead of "city dweller."

For a republic made up of 8 cities, it was natural to refer to your people as "citizens", or "citoyens" in French.

My ultimate point here is that when Jefferson used the word "Citizen" in a context that only the Swiss were using at that time, it is verbal DNA for the origin of the meaning of that word. It is a virtual chain of evidence linking the word to Vattel and Switzerland, and as such it demonstrates that the English common law surrounding the word "Subject" is irrelevant, because England was not the origin of the word we use today.

"Citizen", comes from Switzerland, and therefore so does it's definition.

Vattel's definition.