IF, as he contends -
This is important because it shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States.
IT WOULD NOT BE WRITTEN LIKE THIS:
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
-----
To whit;
AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING - The first three words TELL you its an act of Naturalization. If someone was already a Natural born subject OR natural born citizen, they would REQUIRE NO 'naturalization' [Not to mention the only TYPE of citizen that CAN be made by an Act of naturalization IS a naturalized citizen]
shall be deemed - adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
IF, as Jeff contends they are the same, the sentence would have read 'shall be deemed natural born citizens', but it does not. Why all the extra verbiage?
Because the Founding generation was in a unique position - having been born prior to the country itself, they could not be natural born citizens ....BUT because the country was, in effect, born around them, they WERE entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens
-----
No where has anyone shown anything to prove the naturalization acts passed at the birth of country were intended to operate in perpetuity.
This is another bypassed point of logic, IMHO,
IF the State legislatures had intended natural-born citizen concept to operate in perpetuity, they would NOT have used legislative acts, as legislative acts have sunset clauses.
No....they would have put them where ALL perpetual legislation belongs.....in the State Constitutions.
---------
I agree with your earlier post, joseph20;
Any argument that advocates for a U.S. President who lacks a blood or soil connection to this country is actually advocating for a foreign Presidency.
It's a very common sensical comment. Too bad common sense doesn't seem all that 'common' anymore.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
In any event, it seems to miss my point, which was simply that the phrase “natural born citizen” was used absolutely synonymously and interchangeably with “natural born subject” in law by the State of Massachusetts.
In these statutes, it simply didn’t matter which one they used. For their purposes, both meant exactly the same thing.
In those days, they naturalized foreigners by an act of the legislature. Of course, they would eventually move to a more efficient system.
There were foreigners, and there were those who were natural born subjects/citizens, those who were born citizens.
And when the Legislature made foreigners citizens like those who were natively Massachusetts/US citizens, they said, “We’re going to give these folks all the privileges of natural born subjects.”
Or, “We’re going to give these folks all the privileges of natural born citizens.”
First they would use one term, then the other. Except for the slight implication of subservience to a King implied by the word “subject,” there was no absolutely difference between natural born citizen and natural born subject.
Of course, “natural born subject” would eventually give way completely to the use of the term “natural born citizen.”
Except... it didn’t even do that 100%.
There is at least one State Constitution (I forget which one, and there may be more than one of them) that still uses the old term “natural born subject.”
Anyway, that was the point.
It's also very common sense that generally speaking, anyone born within a realm or country is a member of that realm or country.
It's perhaps not quite as "common sense" now as it used to be, due to the ease of travel between places in the era of fast ships and airplanes.
But it used to be ABSOLUTELY common sense.
That's why the Founders, and those in English law before them, adopted that rule. And it was based on the Biblical principle that God had established governmental authorities for nations, and one should reasonably obey those governmental authorities. One should render unto Caesar that which was due to Caesar.
Pay your taxes, obey the laws that had been put in place to create an orderly and just society. Be a good citizen. These were all Christian values.
But what kingdom or realm or nation were you a part of? Well, if your parents were Macedonian but they were living in Rome, and you were born in Rome, you were also most likely going to grow up there.
So a simple, definite common sense rule was adopted, particularly by the English: If you were born in England, you were English. Unless, of course, you were the child of a foreign ambassador, or of foreign royalty, or of an invading army. THOSE folks wouldn't be English.
And we adopted the exact same rule.
You can certainly argue that the English oversimplified things, and that they OUGHT to have made the rule more complicated.
And you can certainly argue that the rule is obsolete in the era of Boeing 767's, and by golly, ought to be changed.
But they thought it was quite a sensible, common sense rule. And so did our Founding Fathers. And for that reason, it was the rule that they adopted.