Go back and reread the Naturalization Act – it specifies born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States. Which obviously means it doesn’t apply to those born in the United States.
Yes, I cite that very part of the debates of the Act myself. I'm not sure what aspect of your argument it is you are attempting to support by citing it, but it seems strongly supportive of my contention that "natural citizen" status is not determined by the soil upon which someone is born, and it even cites precedent in English law. :)
English common law has been clear that “born in the ligeance of the King” is natural born.
that all those that were born under one natural obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright,The mention in the debates was that like England, the US should provide that those not born on American soil, but born of US citizens abroad, should also be proclaimed “natural born”.
The Delegates and the members of each ratifying state legislature very likely knew exactly what "natural born citizen meant
They did, because like many phrases in the Constitution from common law, “natural born” comes from common law.
and the Naturalization act of 1790 reflects that knowledge, it does not attempt to alter it.
The Naturalization Act extends “natural born” beyond the long time common law definition to include those born abroad. It does not replace the original meaning.
While we are on this subject, I wanted to let you know I've found several references to Vattel and the Law of Nations in several of the Debates on Ratifying the Federal constitution among several of the state legislatures. Blackstone is mentioned (in the Pennsylvania debates) in the context of how the proposed Federal constitution is DIFFERENT from the British form of government. :)
I have no doubt Vattel is mentioned at places, he was an important writer on international law. However, as Justice Scalia mentions, much of our Constitution is founded on common law. Or do you think Scalia doesn’t know what he is talking about?
As virtually all of those born on the soil from 1776 onward were born of citizens of the states, except for slaves and Indians, which curiously weren't regarded as citizens, despite meeting YOUR definition,
Which we have discussed before. Slaves were omitted because they were property. Indians were omitted because they were considered sovereign nations inside the US. You’ve been shown them before, do I have to again find the quotes showing that?
Were it not for the ubiquitosity of Vattel and his widely accepted definition, the naive would think that Monarchical law created to grab servants, might hold sway. :)
And that’s truly nuts. For the most part, the rights guaranteed Englishman were enviable compared to other pre-United States countries. The colonists did not revolt because they had the rights of British subjects, they revolted because the common law rights were denied to them.
“Of course they get things wrong, they're human and failable. But even when wrong, it is still considered current law. You don't erase the law by claiming it is wrong.
“Au Contraire, Mon Frère. That is the first step! You denounce it constantly as has been done with Roe v Wade and Kelo. By the way, speaking of which... how much respect should we have for this decision? This one judge would have flipped the entire outcome if he had only been a little more perceptive. .
Denounce all you want, but don’t claim it isn’t current law. It exists, it’s current law. You can’t wish or denounce it out of existence.
I believe I have proved it. .
Nope. You’ve shown you don’t like the decision. Not that it isn’t currently accepted law.
. Even so, the decision was NOT unanimous, a tell tale sign in my opinion that something is amiss with someone's understanding.
Shall I now give you the long list of decisions that weren’t unanimous, but which are currently accepted law?
Well, to be picky, this guy claims it is based on an English Law from 1350, but what's a few centuries among friends? :)
I think you or he is misunderstanding the difference between the laws. The 1350 law gave the rights of inheritance, but did not proclaim those born beyond the sea as natural born – you can read some excerpts in the WKA decision. Later statutes were more specific: 1708, 1731, and 1773. This makes me suspect anything this guy has written, besides the fact that he appears to contradict himself. But what’s a few centuries between friends? :)
There is also the curious fact that England NEVER USES "jus soli" for their Leadership positions. They ALWAYS use "jus sanguinus." Does this not make you want to question your claim that we follow the English laws on eligibility for Governance?
”Leadership” is very nonspecific when it comes to a monarchy. Are you referring to the monarchs, or to other positions? Links or cites, please. Also, that’s a strawman, since I never said we follow English laws on eligibility for governance, I said (as do the courts, various Attorneys General, and early American legal scholars) that we follow English common law on “natural born.”
As bad as the English were, the French were much worse. (to the peasants, that is.)
Completely agree.
English law still required "perpetual allegiance" so unless you were planing on settling in English held territory, It wouldn't seem likely that the crown would tolerate it's subjects avoiding it's beck and call, or worse, failing to pay taxes to it. Look at how well they treated the Colonies, and those WERE English held territories. :)
And once again, out ancestors did not revolt because they disliked the right of common law, they revolted because they were denied those rights.
Go back and reread the Naturalization Act – it specifies born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States. Which obviously means it doesn’t apply to those born in the United States.
Hmm... I am seemingly unable to get the salient point across to you. Perhaps I can express it mathematically?
X = Born on the Soil. (Jus Soli)
Y = Born to citizen Parents. (Jus Sanguinus)
Z = Article II "Natural born citizen" status.
We have a couple of equations. For example,
we know that X + Y = Z, because the Supreme court told us so in Minor v Happersett.
We know that 0 + Y = Z, because the 1rst Congress told us so in the "naturalization act of 1790.
We can use two simultaneous equations to solve for "X".
Conclusion?
Apparently the "X" part of the equation doesn't matter to the Z status.
"that all those that were born under one natural obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright,"
To my understanding, this could mean either of two things, neither of which is good for your argument.
1. "born under one natural obedience" means owing "obedience" by the character of your nature, (born to people who are already the property of the king) or
2. being claimed by the King as a subject through the process of "naturalization" at birth without regard to the will of yourself or your family.
The First explanation means that you have no other nation from which you may claim allegiance anyway. (Therefore you ARE naturally an English Subject.)
The Second explanation means you are claimed by the King through a process outside of natural law, and therefore contrary to the principles which we asserted to throw off the King's claim on US.
Remember, according to the common law, we were not permitted to throw off the King's authority. You are arguing that the King's law should be kept, though it serves none but the King's benefit.
A further analogy which I just thought up is like that of a cow that births a calf on your neighbors property, all to be claimed by your neighbor. The cow may be free to go back to it's rightful owner, but the calf is now being claimed by the neighbor as his own. (To a kingdom, cows and people occupy the same theoretical footing. :) )
Is this natural law when applied to cows? If it doesn't make sense when applied to cows, I don't know why you think it makes sense when applied to people. :)
It is strange that you assert this, because by the common law we couldn't be free of England. Anyway, you might want to look at what I discovered.
The Naturalization Act extends “natural born” beyond the long time common law definition to include those born abroad. It does not replace the original meaning.
So you are saying congress "modified" the term? I thought we were in agreement that congress could not change the meaning of any constitutional term?
I have no doubt Vattel is mentioned at places, he was an important writer on international law. However, as Justice Scalia mentions, much of our Constitution is founded on common law. Or do you think Scalia doesn’t know what he is talking about?
Much of our principles and procedures of law are based on the common law, but we did in fact specifically throw off aspects of it which were not compatible with the existence of our newly declared nation, and those regarding what constitutes a British subject vs an American Citizen were pretty much the entire point of the War of Independence, and the War of 1812. As for Vattel, I just ran across this last night. You might find it interesting. Also you might peruse the ubiquity of Vattel to the founders by looking here as well.
Which we have discussed before. Slaves were omitted because they were property. Indians were omitted because they were considered sovereign nations inside the US. You’ve been shown them before, do I have to again find the quotes showing that?
So would Slaves or Indians born in England be "subjects" or not? Since you seem intent on maintaining consistency with English laws, this is an interesting question. It seems likely you will have to violate one of your premises regarding either English law or American law whichever way you answer the question. :)