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

To: Rides3
Friedrich de Bourry

And when was the case? It was during or shortly after the year 1886.

Just exactly as I said.

The position of the State Department, judging from what's written about de Bourry and the previous text:

And in another case Mr. Evarts said : "A person born in the United States has a right, though he has intermediately been carried abroad by his parents, to elect the United States as a nationality when he arrives at full age." Mr. Evarts to Mr. Cramer, November 12, 1880, MSS. Inst to Denmark, 2 Wharton, International Law Dig. 397.

was that such persons had "a right to elect the United States as a nationality."

This appears to be different from naturalization.

In other words, the policy seems to have been that if they were carried abroad as a child, they could lose their natural-born citizenship if they didn't come back here and take it up upon reaching age 21. If they returned at age 21, it appears the State Department would recognize them as natural born citizens. If they didn't... "hey, buddy, you chose to be an Austrian."

Then, with Wong, the government went from that to a flat, "You're not even a citizen."

After they had already once acknowledged that he WAS.

The Supreme Court put a stop to all of that with US v. Wong Kim Ark.

182 posted on 04/27/2013 8:44:19 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston
The Supreme Court put a stop to all of that with US v. Wong Kim Ark.For those born in the U.S. to permanently domiciled parents, as specifically predicated in the ruling, yes.
185 posted on 04/27/2013 9:08:30 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | 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