Posted on 01/23/2019 2:21:38 PM PST by 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.
How can Congress grant somebody the citizenship that they already possesses?
All born with other citizenships, not naturally an American.
One is only naturally an American when one cannot be anything else.
They are born with only ONE nationality.
That is the quality the founders were seeking.
Someone who was only an American.
Well, lets start at wiki:
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.[1] It may be done automatically by a statute, i.e., without any effort on the part of the individual, or it may involve an application or a motion and approval by legal authorities
A baby just born is not a citizen of ANY country UNTIL that country accepts (via law) that child as a citizen. For example, India and Malta no longer recognizes jus soli as an automatic grant of citizenship.
The US has codified who is a citizen at birth and has provided the statue (via title 8 section 1401) that grants citizenship to those born on US soil, and those born abroad to US Parents with conditions.
"Marco Rubio is an NBC"...............No. Both parents were foreign nationals at time of Rubio's birth.
"Nikki Haley is an NBC"..................No. Both parents were foreign nationals at time of birth.
"George P. Bush is an NBC"...........No. Mother was a foreign national at the time of birth.
You claim that no law of man can change natural law. So explain the natural law that allows people to overthrow their monarch. Did that natural law exist before 1776? If so, where was it written? Didn’t King George have the natural law right to rule over America?
Again, the problem with natural law is that it is not codified and can be anything anyone wants it to be a the time.
David Ramsey is NOT the supreme law of the land. Neither is any prose, elegant speech, dictionary or commentary.
You keep referencing a law that applies TO ALIENS!
Even your wiki quote should tell you that!
A "non-citizen" means an alien or a foreigner, they just don't use those terms!
You've undermined your own argument with your own reference!
You do not posses citizenship of the United States until Congress says you do. Don’t believe me, throw away all of your documentation and go try and get a passport.
The fact is, LAWS govern the behavior of the government. If the law says that you are not a citizen, then you are not a citizen. Before the 14th amendment, Indians born on US soil were not considered US citizens. In fact, it wasn’t until the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 granted citizenship to all Natives born in America.
Remember that when discussing natural born Citizen.
There are several anti-Constitutional posters here that want the precedent of the Kenyanesian Usurpation to be confirmed.
They are either supporters of an ineligible or disruptors intent on undermining the Constitution.
The effort to undermine the natural protections of the natural born citizen requirement has been going on for a long time.
Other nations laws are irrelevant with regards to US citizenship. It does not matter if some other nation grants citizenship at birth. Only US laws apply. And US laws say that all were born as US citizens and do not need to be naturalized.
Stop pestering people with the facts ( /sarc)
Title 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
Yes, Title 8 discusses Aliens but that is not all that it covers. It also covers NATIONALITY
Sole nationality was the quality the founders were demanding for the Commander-in-Chief.
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “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 suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.
And Congress, despite its enumerated and exclusive authority under Article 1 Section 8 clause 4, has FAILED, repeatedly I might add, to define NBC.
That is my complaint. Congress needs to fix this particular issue.
I'm not a Texan because I'm an American, I'm an American because I'm a Texan.
Does the horse go before the cart or after the cart?
Exactly. I’m under no illusion that his mind can be changed. He has zero interest in the original intent of the founding fathers. I believe we invest the time in the debate for the benefit of others who may read this thread.
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.