Posted on 04/29/2010 8:44:11 AM PDT by Thurston_Howell_III
Nowhere within the act does it directly state that “children born beyond the seas are not regarded as natural born” or “The result of that alteration is that such individuals born beyond the sea are just “citizens.””.
Either a liar or a plagiarist, either way, that statement does NOT appear within the act itself, but does appear, word for word, from the Wiki article about the act.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
TEXT SOURCE: 1 Stat. 103-104. edited version: De Pauw, Linda Grant, et al., eds. Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789 – March 3, 1791. 14 vols. to date. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972-1995. 6:1516-1522.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).
TEXT SOURCE: 1 Stat. 414-415.
For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:
SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: --
First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.
Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.
Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.
Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.
SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
I’ve provided ample source material to back up my postition and you have not, allmendream. Escalate into ad hominem attacks if you feel you must, but you’ve brought nothing but garbled misinterpretation and outright falsehood to this thread today.
Thus the need for you to pretend that what you said (i.e. cut and pasted without attribution) as an opinion about what the change meant was within the act itself.
It was not.
Someone who was born a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen of the U.S., in my view of the law. This is perfectly in accord with Vattel, English precedent, the U.S. Constitution as well as U.S. law.
But please note that I didn't cut and paste this from elsewhere, neither did I represent my OPINION about the law as if it were the actual law itself, and if you asked me for sources that support my view of the law, repeating my OPINION would not be a valid citation in support of my statement.
Noting this, can you see why your own behavior has been so sloppy, reprehensible, and not worthy of respect?
I’ve provided ample information to back up my contention. You’ve provided speculation and ad hominem.
Your view of the law might matter someday when you finally make emperor. But, until then, you need to provide some basis for your preening and prattling. Thus far, you have not. No cite, not even cut and paste, just making it up as you go.
So persuasive, lol. You put such unwarranted store in your “feelings,” for a FReeper.
Then, not content to be caught in a lie, you accuse me of some unspecified falsehoods.
Reprehensible.
And you wonder why people do not take you seriously?
You're flailing about, trying to discredit me, as if that changes the facts or the law. That wouldn't be necessary if you understood what you're arguing about. All you have is emotion and a desire not to be wrong ... nothing else.
Now, if you have anything legitimate to add, please for all our sakes add it. The gratuitous personal attacks are growing tiresome.
Can you follow that? It isn't personally about you, it is the lack of accuracy within your posts.
My view of the law is perfectly consistent with Vattel, English law precedent, the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law.
Your view of the law seeks to misread Wong Kim Ark, read into U.S. law, cite English law where it suits you and ignore it where it does not.
Adding to that you like to cut and paste passages from Wiki as if they were your own work, then either lie or get confused and claim that the OPINION of the act that you cut and pasted was actually within the act.
Is it any wonder that you completely lack any credibility?
Candidates need to provide boxes and boxes of financial and other data to become candidates, so I don’t see why this should be any big deal at all... especially given the fact that being a natural born citizen is indeed a requirement.
I’ve “misrepresented” nothing. You’re grasping at straws in an attempt to discredit the messenger. There is no lack of accuracy in my posts. Saying that repeatedly in the abstract, without any reference to any source to counter does not an argument make. It’s just silly.
Your view of the law is what serves your own interests. You’re not in agreement with Vattel, you’ve attacked The Law Of Nations as an original source for the Founders, for two years. You’ve continually argued that English common law is the only precedent, which is foolish, seeing as how we’d just fought a Revolution to separate ourselves, and would fight another, over sovereignty and citizenship.
The law is what it is, and Mr. Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a citizen on the basis of the 14th Amendment. Everything else is speculation and wishful thinking. You’ve engaged in little else.
It certainly does. Here's the summary of the decision. No mention of Wong being a natural born citizen. Read it and weep.
"... whether a child born in the United States ... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
So now a U.S. citizen born overseas IS a “natural born citizen”, in the example of John McCain, because his father was still under the jurisdiction of the USA (just as Wong Kim Arks parents were under the jurisdiction of the USA).
No, because the father, a U.S. Citizen, was in military service to the United States and under the jurisdiction of the USA. Wong's parents were not in military service to the United States and were not citizens.
So much for your statement that the law of 1795 made it so that U.S. citizens born overseas were just “citizens” but not “natural born citizens”.
I didn't make such a statement, but quoted another poster in one of my posts. But, it's moot. McCain is still a natural born citizen under Vattel's definition, regardless of the naturalization act of 1795.
Wong Kim Ark's parents were under the jurisdiction of the USA, that was the principle that would have, under England, made him a “natural born subject”.
Moving the nation from England to the USA changed “subject” to “citizen” but it in no way altered the principle under which he would be “natural born”.
The guiding point is that it calls the plaintiff a 'citizen of the United States,' which is the same term used by the Constitution for eligibility to the offices of senator or representative. There is no affirmative claim that Wong is a natural born citizen nor any that he is a natural born subject. Further English law does not make anyone a natural born citizen. "As much a citizen" does not = natural born citizen.
Wong Kim Ark's parents were under the jurisdiction of the USA, that was the principle that would have, under England, made him a “natural born subject”.
The principle in question did not become operational in the United States until the passage of the 14th amendment and it only declares persons to be 'citizens of the United States.' Natural born citizens are not dependent on such a declaration.
Where does the natural allegiance due to circumstances of birth change?
If he was born in England he would be a “natural born subject”, but he was not born in England, he was born in the USA. Where does the natural allegiance due to circumstances of birth change?
“Natural born” if a subject of England, but just “born but not natural born” if a citizen of the USA?
Where does that come from other than your desire to have it so?
Under what principle would the natural law surrounding the principle of allegiance owed to nation of birth change?
Calling someone a “citizen of the United States” is not a term that excludes them from being a “natural born” citizen of these United States, just as the Constitutional eligibility for the offices of Senator or Representative specify “citizen of the United States”, but in no way excludes natural born citizens.
This simply isn't true. If it was, there was no need for the 14th amendment to make everyone born on the soil to be citizens at birth. Otherwise, the English common law only applied to free, white aliens and not ALL aliens.
If he was born in England he would be a “natural born subject”, but he was not born in England, he was born in the USA. Where does the natural allegiance due to circumstances of birth change?
You forget that in the United States, you could be born with EITHER British allegiance or with allegiance to the United States at the time of this country's founding. There was no natural allegiance except as declared through the parents. We didn't strictly follow English common law, and the Supreme Court affirmed this in Shanks V. Dupont by noting the distinction in adherence to the crown or the new country.
“Natural born” if a subject of England, but just “born but not natural born” if a citizen of the USA?
As the crown declares the loyalty of his inhabitants by statute, whereas the USA does not, at least not until the 14th amendment and in different terms.
Calling someone a “citizen of the United States” is not a term that excludes them from being a “natural born” citizen of these United States, just as the Constitutional eligibility for the offices of Senator or Representative specify “citizen of the United States”, but in no way excludes natural born citizens.
But they are different terms and the way in which they are different is when the parents are citizens. You can be born in this country and not be a natural born citizen which was the principle in effect when the Constitution was ratified.
Kim Wong Ark was not born before this country's founding. All persons born in this nation since its founding have a “natural birth” allegiance to America. That is the principle under which, if born in England, Kim Wong Ark would be found to be a “natural born subject”. But he was not a “subject” born in England, he was a “citizen” born in America.
Where, in moving from England to America; does the principle of “natural birth” allegiance change?
It doesn't. You want it to, so you wish to read “just as much a citizen as the child of citizens” as ‘just as much a citizen, but LESS in that he is not natural born’; but that is certainly not stated, and not even implied, by the language of the decision.
The so-called principle in England that allegedly made those born of 'aliens' to be natural born subjects was in reality an act of naturalization sparked by a change of monarchs and decided in an ensuing court case.
"With the end of the Tudor dynasty following the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England as James I, thereby uniting the two kingdoms in the "union of the crowns." At once there was considerable debate concerning the extent of union effected by the succession of the Scottish King to the crown of England. James, however, considered a regal union alone to be insufficient. Upon his arrival in England, James advocated a closer unity between the laws, institutions, economies, and churches of England and Scotland to protect and strengthen the Stuart dynasty."
"All but two of the justices determined that persons born in Scotland after the accession of James to the throne of England (the postnati, as they were referred to in the case) were to be regarded not as aliens in England but as natural-born subjects, qualified to inherit English land. The postnati as subjects born into the allegiance of James after he became King of England owed their allegiance to the sovereign of England as well as Scotland. By constrast, the antenati, those born before 1603, were born into the allegiance of a King with no relation to the English throne. Therefore, unless the antenati were naturalized by statute, these Scottish subjects of James remained aliens as a matter of English law."
As you can see, the 'aliens' in question weren't simply random foreigners or immigrants, but those who were part of what we know now as the United Kingdoms.
"Several accounts of Calvin's Case were published, but by far the most influential was that of Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Coke's published reports were widely accessible to lawyers of later ages, and Coke's report of Calvin's Case was the first comprehensive statement in England of the law of naturalization. Calvin's Case established a territorial rule for acquisition of subject status at birth:
"Every one born within the dominions of the King of England, whether here or in his colonies or dependencies, being under the protection of--therefore, according to our common law, owes allegiance to--the King and is subject to all the duties and entitled to enjoy all the rights and liberties of an Englishman."
If that last paragraph is a direct quote of the law, then it doesn't specifically declare anyone to be a natural born subject. And it was called a naturalization law. This 'common law' is what allowed American colonists to be considered natural born subjects as this rule affected those born in the dominions and under the protection of the King. This didn't apply to what we think of as aliens, which in their time, were foreigners or denizens. We know this because the charters of some of the original American colonies say so.
"Also, Wee do for Us, our Heires, and Successors, declare by these Presents, that all and every the Persons, beinge our Subjects, which shall goe and inhabitt within the said Collony and Plantation, and every of their Children and Posterity, which shall happen to be born within the Limitts thereof, shall have and enjoy all Liberties, and ffranchizes, and Immunities of free Denizens and naturall Subjects within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abidinge and born within this our Kingdome of England, or any other our Dominions.
Charter of the Colony of Massachussetts - 1620"
Here it's saying you can be born in the province and enjoy the liberties of free denizens or natural subjects. Similar language is in the charters of Georgia, Rhode Island, Maryland and Maine, etc. Whatever common law we were allegedly following, did not specifically declare all persons born in America to be natural born subjects. In most of these, it clearly reserves the declaration of being a natural born subject for those who are born of subjects. In some charters, foreigners were required to take an oath of allegiance and were allowed to become denizens or subjects, which would be akin to naturalizing, thus any children born thereafter would be different than the situation in Wong Kim Ark. The Wong decision evidently oversimplified the laws or relied on citations that blurred the common law. Whatever you think is a guiding principle or 'natural allegiance' just isn't so.
Now that same principle of “natural birth” allegiance (no matter how well founded you think the concept is) to the nation of birth was extended to Wong Kim Ark; but he was not a “natural born subject”, he was a citizen - but where did he lose “natural born”?
Of course he, by the findings of the Court, did not lose his “natural born” allegiance to the nation of his birth.
If born in England he would, by the law cited, be a “natural born subject”. The same principle, extended to his birth in America, would make him a “natural born citizen”.
Did you not read what I just posted???? If born in England, at best, Wong would have been considered a Denizen or foreigner. The aliens that were considered natural born subjects were Scots who were under common laws with England, not random foreigners or immigrants. There's no declaration of natural born allegiance to the nation of birth. "Natural allegiance" was to the crown, not the soil. There's no similar principle in the United States.
From Wong Kim Ark....
Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.
As well as.....
His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
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.