But nations aren't States and States aren't nations.
It why why Washington DC isn't a 'state', but the District of Columbia.
It was my understanding your assertion was Vattel had no operation inside the US. I gave evidence via Tucker that the 10th Amendment, a part of our own Constitution, was a direct internal operation of Vattel.
Did I misunderstand the assertion?
-----
>>> MT - I don't see why it would have occurred to them to rob a child of his/her foreign inheritances just because one parent was American.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
In rebuttal of the 'only one parent matters' theology, or the continuing concept that somehow American citizenship can cancel out the citizenship of other nations.
[I think I actually flubbed up and grabbed a different part of that response than I intended, so I understand the confusion. Sorry]
----
I just don't think they would have been that clumsy or shortsighted.
In their defense, I don't think they were. Natural Law, or the Laws of Nature were well known to the Founders. Natural-born is a concept that goes way back. It is a blood Right. It is how Kings inherent thrones and children inherit property.
The only difference between these 2 phrases is the last words...subject and citizen.
Here we have no King. WE are sovereign...we are our own Kings.......each and everyone of us.
It's why the Founders called us SOVERIGN CITIZENS.
It's why they were always taking about our Natural, or 'inalienable' Rights.
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
---
But I see that he's discussing denization and naturalization as two options for how to handle "alien friends," as distinct from natural-born citizens.
That's right, because only the Nature of ones birth can make one natural born.
Let me try it this way-
In Tuckers commentary he explained the division of power in England - how a King could make a denizen, yet only Parliament could make a naturalized citizen.
He never mentioned how the King could MAKE a natural born citizen, because even a King can't do that. A King can proclaim someone to BE natural-born, and insist they are treated AS natural-born......but even a King cannot instill in someone a blood Right they never possessed. That blood tie CAN only be there one way - through the blood.
This actually ties right into the next part of your post with the Naturalization Act where the States were passing the 'grandfather clauses' concerning the naturalization of People becoming citizens of the new federal government..... Rights, priviligies and immunities OF natural born citizens.
*
Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.
Because that was the only 2 types there were. The federal government had yet to fully exist, so there were no 'naturalized' citizens.
The naturalization acts proclaimed the people that were in the States at the time of the Revolution to 'have the Rights, privileges, and immunities' OF natural born citizens, so they were considered natural-born.
Unless and until they professed a tie, or 'allegiance' to the country, they remained aliens.
• [3rd paragraph from bottom]
In 1825, they passed a general and permanent statute, enabling aliens to take and hold lands in fee, and to sell, mortgage, and devise, but not demise or lease the same, equally, as if they were native citizens, provided the party had previously taken an oath that he was a resident in the United States, and intended always to reside therein, and to become a citizen thereof as soon as he could be naturalized, and that he had taken the incipient measures required by law for that purpose.
........ that every person of good character, who comes into the state, and settles, and takes an oath of allegiance to the same,
………. The article in the constitution of the United States, declaring that citizens of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, applies only to natural born or duly naturalized citizens, ........
James Kent, Commentaries
-----
BTW - I actually meant to ask you in my earlier post:
How did you get started on your adventure into our past?
Actually, Vattel (or the translation I see) uses the terms pretty interchangeably.
It was my understanding your assertion was Vattel had no operation inside the US. I gave evidence via Tucker that the 10th Amendment, a part of our own Constitution, was a direct internal operation of Vattel.
It's not an operation of Vattel. Tucker was just analogizing our association of states to a kind of nation--a "federal republic"--described by Vattel. It doesn't mean the 10th exists because it follows some principle Vattel laid out.
Natural-born is a concept that goes way back. It is a blood Right.
And yet "natural-born subjects" did not necessarily have a blood right to that status.
Because that was the only 2 types there were. The federal government had yet to fully exist, so there were no 'naturalized' citizens.
Okay, but what does that have to do with the fact that Tucker equates "natural born citizens" with "those born within the state." Doesn't that indicate that he thinks "natural born" status has to do with birthplace, not parentage? (And he even used the word "citizen," not "subject.")
How did you get started on your adventure into our past?
Reading birther threads here on FR. The "born in Kenya" arguments never carried a lot of weight, but the Constitutional questions were interesting, I thought. So I started reading and trying to figure out for myself what I thought, rather than relying on a bunch of other people's interpretations.