You just refuse to see these two examples for what they are. Proof that the founders were aware of "anchor babies" and that they rejected the idea.No, I don't "refuse to see these two examples for what they are." I see quite clearly what they are.
It is YOU who refuse to see these two examples for what they are. And you refuse to do so, absolutely.
In the case of Eldred, Monroe was writing from Paris, France, in 1795. This was NINETEEN YEARS after the American Revolution had taken place.
Prior to the American Revolution, every person born in America was considered a BRITISH subject.
Upon the Revolution, it was necessary to divide the people into two groups: Those who would henceforth continue to be British subjects, and those who would henceforth be regarded as members of the new nation.
Those who adhered to the COMMUNITIES of which they had always been a part, were subjects or citizens of their State and of the United States. Since they had been born into those communities, those States, they were regarded as natural born subjects, or natural born citizens, of those States and of the United States.
The "grandfather clause" in the Constitution allowing for those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to the Presidency was NOT for these people, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It was not needed by them.
It was needed by people such as James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, who had been born in places like Scotland and the Caribbean, who had come to America and risked their lives and fortunes to help us win our Independence. And it was to honor such loyal Patriots that the grandfather clause was passed.
This is an historical FACT.
Those who were born in America had the opportunity to ELECT to adhere to their communities, or to adhere to the King. They had a CHOICE.
If a person stayed in the United States and participated from that time forth as an American citizen, he was deemed to have elected to be a United States citizen. Again, such persons were considered natural born US citizens, because they were simply continuing the allegiance they had ALWAYS had to their own communities, which were now United States communities.
If a person LEFT the country and moved to England, or elsewhere, he was deemed to have elected NOT to be a United States citizen, but to have continued to adhere to the CROWN. Such a person was considered a natural born subject of England. He had been born in allegiance to the King, and he had continued in that allegiance.
If a person was born in America, but was outside of the United States at the time of the Revolution, he indicated his election by either remaining outside of the United States, or by returning to the US to take up citizenship here. But such election had to be done in a timely manner.
And if a person was a MINOR at the time of the Revolution, he too had the opportunity to specify who he was following: His community, or the King.
If a person was born on US soil, and carried to England as a minor by his or her parents, that person had the ability, upon reaching adulthood, to reject the election of subjecthood to the King that his or her parents had made for him. He or she could return to America as a young adult, and take up United States citizenship, having elected to continue to adhere to the community and not the King.
But such election had to be made in a timely manner. In Inglis (1830), the Supreme Court said that Mr. Inglis had been born during the time when Americans were making such election, and had had the opportunity to return from England as a young adult and take up US citizenship, but that by the time he had reached 40-something years old, it was too late for him to do so. He had "ratified" the choice of British citizenship that his parents had made for him.
Mr. Eldred whom you refer to was in the same circumstances:
Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there [in America] in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since.
This letter was written in 1795, 19 years after the Declaration of Independence. Monroe is simply saying that in the division of Americans into United States citizens and English subjects, Eldred had clearly elected to be an subject of England and not a United States citizen.
As for McClure, President Madison's administration sent a letter attesting to his United States citizenship, and he was released. The sole basis stated for his American citizenship was that he had been "born in Charleston since the Revolution." No mention whatsoever was made of his ever having been naturalized, because he wasn't. He was born a citizen. He was a natural born citizen.
Again, there were only two kinds of citizens: natural born citizen, and naturalized citizens. McClure was a natural born citizen.
And the basis for his citizenship mentioned NOTHING whatsoever about the citizenship of his father. He was a natural born United States citizen solely on the basis of the fact that he had been born in Charleston, South Carolina, since the Revolution.
And that phrase: "SINCE THE REVOLUTION" removed from McClure any of the kind of doubt that might attach to a person such as Mr. Eldred. Being born in Charleston clearly after the Revolution, he had had no election to make. He was a natural born United States citizen.
To further comment:
Prior to the Revolution, Americans had allegiance both to their communities and to the King of England.
And prior to the Revolution, those two allegiances were not in conflict.
At the time of the Revolution, their community and the King parted ways. It was required that Americans choose which allegiance was their primary allegiance, and which they were going to follow.
Those who adhered to their communities as their primary allegiance, were natural born citizens of their communities, their States, and the United States that formed out of their communities.
Those who adhered to the King and his nation were natural born subjects of England.
Again, it was not for the purpose of making eligible people who had been born in America that the grandfather clause was passed. These were natural born subjects or natural born citizens of the United States.
It was for folks like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton.
In the case of Eldred, Monroe was writing from Paris, France, in 1795. This was NINETEEN YEARS after the American Revolution had taken place. And you've suddenly forgotten about Mr. Smith? You can't have it both ways.
This is an historical FACT.
Blah blah blah. You always assert that YOUR OPINION is "Historical FACT!" No, it isn't.
As for McClure, President Madison's administration sent a letter attesting to his United States citizenship, and he was released. The sole basis stated for his American citizenship was that he had been "born in Charleston since the Revolution." No mention whatsoever was made of his ever having been naturalized, because he wasn't. He was born a citizen. He was a natural born citizen.
And again you lie by omission. Secretary of State James Monroe sent a letter only after having received proof that James McClure qualified as a citizen of South Carolina when he was born. The proof was provided by a member of the South Carolina congressional delegation, and by a Supreme Court Justice. The letter would not have been sent had the proof not been forthcoming.
James Monroe, November 27, 1811
Joel Barlow Esq. Department of State Paris Nov. 27, 1811 Sir
I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.
I have James Monroe
Mr McClure spent over a year in French Custody because Ambassador Armstrong refused to recognize his citizenship even though he had a birth certificate from South Carolina. Not only did Armstrong deny his citizenship, he provided the French Authorities with information which they used to ARREST McClure as an "English Prisoner of France."
James McClure was in French custody from April 10, 1810 to sometime after November 27, 1811, when Monroe wrote the letter. A year and a half in French custody on what YOU argue is a simple jus soli rule?
So Ambassador John Armstrong is too stupid to know that James McClure was a citizen because he was born in Charleston? And James Monroe was so stupid that he needed to see Affidavits and Certificates from South Carolina to convince him McClure was a citizen?
Your theory keeps coming back to this; The Founders were stupid.
Yeah, pull the other one.