Posted on 03/09/2021 7:25:08 AM PST by GQuagmire
Had an interesting discussion on a group chat with my family last night. My youngest daughter who is liberal and believes the mainstream media (she’ll come around eventually) was up in arms about the mean treatment of little Archie by the royal family. Skin color, lack of title, no security etc. I did a little research on his lack of title and I found out about the George V convention. Long story short there’s a internet chat, discussion about Archie becoming President one while his cousin will be king at the same time.
The vast majority of websites will tell you the exact opposite. I researched this topic for about four years, and it's not easy to get to the bottom of it, but in the original intent of the founders, it was indeed a requirement for the father to be a citizen.
At that time in history, women could not pass on citizenship on their own unless they were unmarried and their child was a bastard. In all cases of marriage, the child acquired the father's citizenship.
A lot of this information is supplied in this old thread.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2512143/posts?q=1&;page=1
You are absolutely correct on this particular point. Natural citizens do not need naturalization. (Which is an act of congress.)
They also do not need to make an "election" to remain a US citizen, because they have no ability to be anything but a US citizen.
The Supreme court ruled in that case with the Italian guy, the name of which I have no forgotten, (Roger vs Bellei) that natural citizens don't have to follow any procedures outlined by congress to retain their citizenship.
Any citizen which has to follow a procedure to remain a citizen, is not a natural citizen.
Archie would not be a natural citizen precisely because he would have to follow the naturalization procedures outlined by congress when they passed the law granting citizenship to children born abroad to American women citizens. (Cable act of 1922, and then the Women's act of 1934, If I remember correctly.)
Congress cannot create natural citizens. Congress only has the power to naturalize, meaning to make "like natural."
She wasn’t elected and she didn’t win a single state in her party’s primary. That’s what history will show. at this point.
What does age have to do with being a "natural born citizen"?
I was a natural born citizen the moment of my birth, and it didn't matter how old I was, I was still a natural born citizen at any age.
What is this strange sort of citizenship of which you speak that you must qualify for by reaching a certain age?
It sounds rather unnatural.
We have been over this many times. You continue to maintain your position, I continue to maintain mine. We are not going to change each others opinions, so I see no value in hashing over the same material.
No. The rules of 1787 were that only men could pass on citizenship. The only way a woman could pass on citizenship in 1787 was to be unmarried. If a woman was married, the child acquired the citizenship of his father, and so did the woman, regardless of what her previous citizenship was.
Women were not able to pass on citizenship until the cable act of 1922, and it is nonsensical to think that an act in 1922 could undo the meaning of a law from 1787.
Both of which have been rendered irrelevant by later legislation. Archie would not need to be naturalized because he's a natural born citizen per the 14th Amendment and legislation in place when he was born.
McCain was an @$$hole, but he was absolutely without question an American citizen born on American territory to two American citizens.
The Federal government became supreme over the states in 1865, and it has abused that power ever since.
The 14th amendment *IS* naturalization. Natural citizens don't need it. Those who need the 14th to be citizens, aren't natural citizens.
Archie would not need to be naturalized because he’s a natural born citizen per the 14th Amendment and legislation in place when he was born.
Oh, please show us where in the 14th Amendment that it mentions natural born citizenship. Further, please tell us how “legislation” changes the US Constitution.
Things must be slow over at thefagblow.com.
Show me where the U.S. Constitution defines natural-born citizen.
Things must be slow over at thefagblow.com.
I will defer to your expertise on that particular website.
As logical as your crap usually is.
Regarding Obama, if he was actually born in Hawaii, he gets 14th amendment citizenship, which is not natural citizenship. If he was born in Canada, as some evidence indicates, his mother was too young for the naturalization statute to apply, and so he would be a Canadian citizen, which is what I think he is.
No answer. Of course.
I see value in contradicting your efforts to mislead others as to what is objectively true.
Nor from you obviously. The Constitution mentions two types of citizenship and two only, natural-born and naturalized. If you're not one then you're another. The kid is a natural-born citizen because his mother was a citizen.
LOL! Over the years I've found very little value in the opinions you post.
If citizenship depends on a statute, then it is naturalization, even if there is no naturalization ceremony. Rogers v. Bellei illustrates this.
That said, I would guess that nearly all of the public is of a mind that naturalization only occurs if and when there is a ceremony.
Naturalization only works on, and is only necessary for people who are not or would not be citizens otherwise.
Firstly, the 14th amendment *IS* naturalization (en masse) by legislative act, and secondly, according to what I read earlier, Archie was born in London, so the 14th amendment doesn't even apply.
I think he is only a citizen from the naturalization act of 1952. (or subsequent iteration thereof)
This leaves him in the position of having to "elect" to remain an American citizen, or choose to be a British subject.
And I will reiterate. If you have to "elect" to be a citizen, you are not a natural born citizen. You are a creature of written law, not natural law.
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.