Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
They abrogated English Common law in many particulars, among them the most prominent was the question of what constitutes an American Citizen.

When they did deviate about citizenship, they were quite specific about it. They never abrogated, (in fact periodically affirmed) jus soli. What they changed was the English idea of "once an English subject, always an English subject." Several justices discuss the right of a citizen to renounce and cease to be a subject or citizen.

English Children born anywhere are English Subjects.

And American children born anywhere are American citizens - or do you disagree? The court has affirmed in Rogers v Bellei that we follow jus soli (with modifications by statute.)

485 posted on 10/17/2011 8:08:24 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies ]


To: sometime lurker
When they did deviate about citizenship, they were quite specific about it. They never abrogated, (in fact periodically affirmed) jus soli. What they changed was the English idea of "once an English subject, always an English subject." Several justices discuss the right of a citizen to renounce and cease to be a subject or citizen.

The Supreme court rightly declared in Minor v Happersett that "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. That there were doubts was in my opinion due to the fact that so many people kept trying to shove that English Law jus soli principle back into American Law, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it was not the criteria for "natural born citizen" even if it was ever the criteria for being a citizen of a particular state. In any case, you acknowledge that we absolutely rejected English Common law regarding the Children of Englishman always being an Englishman as they tried to apply it to Americans. Good, that's progress. :)

And American children born anywhere are American citizens - or do you disagree? The court has affirmed in Rogers v Bellei that we follow jus soli (with modifications by statute.)

My personal opinion is that Children born anywhere of American Parents are indeed "natural born citizens." This is consistent with the 1790 act of naturalization which was created by the first congress, made up of many delegates to the convention, and who ought to have known what they meant in 1787 when they wrote article II. As for children born to only one American parent, they are not a "natural citizen" but instead a mixture of allegiances with which they can chose to be one or the other. A "natural citizen" is not faced with such a choice at birth. They are born into a single "natural" allegiance.

Prior to the Cable act of 1924, split nationality births were not even possible, except in very rare cases.

516 posted on 10/18/2011 8:35:52 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson