Free, you’re either being dishonest here or you missed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which deleted the words “natural born”.
“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 on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. 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 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, intitled, “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passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed. “
Larry (Moe and Curly). You're either diilibertly trying to to miss represent my point or you simply missed my point.
The Nat Act of 1790 contradicts two arguments that I've seen here.
It shows some of the founders and their colleagues using statutory law to define the meaning of the term "natural born citizen".
It shows some of the founders and the colleagues using the criteria of the citizenship of only one parent to define natural born citizenship.