True, natural born citizens, but only if they were born of citizen parents, which you refuse to acknowledge.
What? You quoted me specifically acknowledging that.
Why would they specify, of citizen parents? They already discussed aliens becoming citizens. They did not mention aliens becoming natural born citizens. The children of naturalized citizens would indeed be natural born citizens.
You keep confusing what that congress actually did do, and what you wish they had done. In fairness, they addressed two separate questions in the same bill, to wit:
1. How does a non-citizen become a citizen, and what is the status of that persons already living issue and;
2. What is the citizenship status of the child of a US citizen born outside of the United States.
They simply didn't address the question of the citizenship status of a person born on US soil, probably because they didn't think it needed to be clarified. You wish they had. I wish they had. But they didn't.
Did you, by the way, just happened to slip across the border?
Don't get snarky. You don't even know my opionion on the matter, you're just getting nasty because I'm pointing out that you're making a weak argument, and I would like to you to make a strong one. And sloppy, emotional insults like that further undermine your case. But no, I did not.
Let me ask you a question.
Looks like you have two:
Why is it that, long before this was ever a controversy, people were taught that natural born meant born of citizen parents. I was taught that in American history when I had American history in the 11th grade. Later on, in the 70s, when I went to college, I remember the old professor explaining what a natural born citizen was. He had a doctorate in history. My mother’s geneneration was taught that, she told me, and her mother’s also.
You have not established that this was the case. I was in high school in the 70's, and I don't recall that being part of the curriculum. Perhaps it changed in the intervening decade. But this conversation started with you, rightly, searching for an historical source that supported the claim that to be "natural born", a person had to have two citizen parents at the time of his birth. One's decades-old recollections from high school civics, or the oral tradition passed along by your mother, are a slimmer reed than one might want to support such a bold claim. People are simply going to demand something a little more solid.
Why did all these millions of people and all these highly educated people have it so wrong for so long.?
The problem with your second question is that you're "begging the question". You're assuming your conclusion as a part of your argument. Which is always the problem with this evergreen "NBC" debate. People have strong feelings about the matter, and seem to think that emotional intensity should win the day. Well, sometimes it does, but it's usually not pretty, and often leads to unintended and undesireable consequences.
Your beef is not with me, however. I would agree that both birthright citizenship and the expansive definition of a "natural born citizen" have proved to be problematic, and we would be better off if things could somehow be moved to align more with the position you seem to be taking.
But it's like the 19th amendment: a complete disaster, but without any way to rectify the situation within the current political system.
“You keep confusing what that congress actually did do, and what you wish they had done.”
I cannot, cannot make you thick-headed people understand my point.
I am not trying to persuade anyone of the present legality of the Act of 1790. That is insanity. It did not last very long at all. It was replaced, as there have been many naturalization acts over the centuries.
My point in referring to the Act of 1790 is the fact that, in clarifying points on citizenship, it incidenally DEFINES what a natural born citizen is. Can you comprehend?
Congress can pass laws regarding naturalization, but Congress cannot amend the Constitution, and the Supreme Court with its rulings cannot amend the Constitution.
There is only one time natural born citizenship is mentioned in the Constitution and as each word in the Constitution was haggled over, it was placed there because it meant something. It was not a new concept. John Jay wrote Washington a letter, dated July 25, 1797, requesting that he “provide a strong check to the admisson of foreigners into the administration of the national government and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the army not be given nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” And as the Act of 1790 spells out, the Founders were very restrictive as to what comprised a foreigner.
Again, my point is, in the language of the of Act of 1790, there is an incidental definition of the term “natural born citizen.”
I have a print-out of the Act. It is very short. It gives the rules for people to become naturalized citizens. It is very restrictive. A naturalized citzen is called a citizen of the United States. A person born of citizen parents is called a natural born citizen.
Again, the Act addresses the possiblility of a child being born overseas of citizen parents. It says they if that happens, they are natural born citizens. It doesn’t just say citizens, as in the case of aliens becoming citizens, it says natural born.
“But this conversation started with you, rightly, searching for an historical source that supported the claim that to be “natural born”, a person had to have two citizen parents at the time of his birth.”
No, I was not searching, since I have known the language of the Act of 1790 for years. It is a historical source, about as historical as it gets.
And I care not at all that you had your head up your ass and missed an historical fact in high school.
And I am not trying to convince you of anything. If someone reads the language from a historical document and refuses to admit what it says, he is certainly beyond my help.
Another question: According to that Act, how does a person, born overseas, accrue citizenship and of what type?
I don’t think you are honest enough to admit what it states.