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

Skip to comments.

Our First And Third Congress Defined Natural Born Citizen
Nationality Act of 1790-1795 ^ | January 8th, 2016 | Uncle Sham

Posted on 01/08/2016 6:52:06 PM PST by Uncle Sham

For a five year period of time, the term “Natural Born Citizen” had a definition which differed from the “two-citizen parents, born under United States jurisdiction” description generally accepted for most of this nation’s existence. The Nationality Act of 1790 referred to those born to citizens beyond Sea or out of the limits of the United States as being “natural born citizens”. Because of the term “citizens” as it pertains to parentage, there is an argument to be made that this requires two citizen parents for this to be allowed. Below is a quote from the 1790 Act. Since this act would have been enforced on a case by case basis, the term “children” could just as easily be “child”.

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

”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.”

This Act was repealed in 1795 and the term “natural born citizens” was changed to read “citizens”. What this did was tell us that a location of birth WAS PART of being a “natural born citizen”, and in fact, the location was someplace OTHER THAN “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States”. This also told us exactly what someone was who was born to citizens of the United States outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, a ”citizen” Once again, even in this case, there appears to be a need for two citizen parents.

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).

”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.”

The combination of these two Acts, passed when they were, in the order that they were passed, by many who helped form this nation, gives us a clear understanding of what they thought constituted a “natural born citizen”. The term did not disappear from the Constitution, nor has it ever been defined since this time so the category of “natural born citizen” still exists. Since it does still exist, it IS’NT someone born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. That leaves only one location that is acceptable and it has to be within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. It also seems that there is a requirement for two citizen parents.

Kenya, Canada. Neither one of them meet the standard.


TOPICS: FReeper Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cruz; eligibility; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 last
To: Godebert
Answer

Thank you, I appreciate your answer. However, it only hints at why the founders laid down different citizenship requirements for presidential candidates than for congressional candidates.

What I have found so far is that the founders felt obligated to avoid the possibility of a presidential candidate having a divided allegiances because his parents were not both citizens of the same country.

A reading of the Federalist Papers reveals that the founders were very thorough in avoiding the corruption that always comes from mankind with power.

161 posted on 01/09/2016 1:56:05 PM PST by MosesKnows (Love Many, Trust Few, and Always Paddle Your Own Canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Oklahoma

any evidence? I seen some stuff but nothing concrete- all i know is he has a computer generated forged BC, and a bunch of fake photos.


162 posted on 01/09/2016 2:20:10 PM PST by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: chicken head

They definitely were trying to hide something, but what?

I believe the notice in the local paper was legitimate and is the simplest and best marker about where he was born. The Kenyan was not a wealthy man and the Dunhams didn’t have much as well making a trip to Africa unlikely. I think the birth certificate showed his real father. Later when Obama was applying for college aid and writing books he used the lie that he had been born in Kenya to be applied to his records. I think that is the real reason his college records were hidden.

Obama probably never dreamed that one day he would be in a position to run for president and the born in Kenya fiction would go from help to hindrance. That’s when the local flunkies in Hawaii helped him out by forging a new birth certificate.


163 posted on 01/09/2016 2:57:44 PM PST by Oklahoma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; DoodleDawg
No, that has never been so.

(It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you think you know that is all wrong)

"Prior to May 24, 1934, children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were United States citizens, acquired U.S. citizenship at birth unless the father had never "resided" in the United States prior to the child's birth. In the absence of a specific definition of "resided", the Immigration and Naturalization Service took the position that even a temporary sojourn by the U.S. citizen parent was sufficient to comply with this requirement.

Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the "1934 Statute") gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship. "

164 posted on 01/09/2016 4:47:53 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: chicken head

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3381517/posts?page=110#110

Obama is suspicious for other reasons. His birth documents and selective service registration documents are very suspicious, if not outright fraudulent. From everything I have read, seen, his documents are forgeries. There is a sense that his alleged mother was not his actual mother. These matters are left to the future to judge.

For now, if Obama’s alleged mother is his actual birth mother, regardless of technicalities of her age or time in Africa/USA at the time of his birth, it would appear he is a citizen, natural born of his mother, not naturalized.

However, even more than the high suspicion of Obama’s fraudulent past, there is the very real specter that his loyalties lie with cultural Marxism. He is not loyal to the United States. He is loyal to another ideology. All of this has led to conjectures and presumptions about his citizenship status, causing many people to create ‘rules’, ‘theories’ of natural citizenship to explain that he couldn’t possibly be eligible to be President because it’s not supposed to happen that the United States has a President that is not loyal to its Constitution, to its existence, to its people or to the freedom of those people.

So such theories try and shoehorn a line of reasoning that he’s not somehow a true natural American. That could be the case or not, we cannot know until a court of law or a Senate Trial (which will not happen now) pass a ruling. One thing has a high degree of possibility, that is if a GOP candidate like Donald Trump is elected President, then Obama’s documents can be prosecuted for forgery. That could open the whole can of worms that Obama appears to be hiding in.


165 posted on 01/09/2016 4:48:07 PM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
IRRELEVANT and stupid question, meant only to distract from the definition our Founding Fathers gave us !

If you are serious with your question, then do some research yourself.
If you're simply trying to distract for the definition given because you do not like that definition, then be gone !

BUT FOR OTHERS WHO REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.

166 posted on 01/09/2016 5:53:31 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

I agree with you, and believe his BC and selective service registration doc’s are forged along with photographs.. People that would make up stories and forge doc’s is a con man that stole someone else’s identity..sounds like to me.. I remember back in 08 when everyone was hot on the BC thing that someone found a death or death certificate of a Barack Obama in New York, but is long gone now- i looked for it again a couple of years ago with no luck.. From all the fake doc’s it would seem he is and using another name.. I mean thats all it can be, why make up fake documents and photos? just thinking out of the box


167 posted on 01/09/2016 6:33:44 PM PST by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Your insults and huge font text did not answer my questions. Please impress me some other way.


168 posted on 01/09/2016 6:49:59 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

WHY feed the Piranha, WHEN all they’re going to do is CONTINUE their baseless attacks ?


169 posted on 01/09/2016 7:30:43 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

I guess I look at this in a simple way. To me natural born citizen means that a person can be nothing but a citizen of the U.S. If someone has a parent who is from another country then that person could claim dual citizenship to the parent’s nation. That also applies to someone born in another country; they could claim dual citizenship for the country they were born in. A natural born citizen cannot claim any other citizenship except for the country he is born in and that his parents are citizens of. The founders wanted to be sure that the President had no possibility of being influenced by any other country.


170 posted on 01/10/2016 2:59:25 PM PST by joliecajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Radix; Jim Robinson
This argument that Cruz is not eligible is sheer idiocy

The issue is current law. The Constitution gives Congress the power in the area of naturalization. That necessarily extends to citizenship and immigration.

According to current law, Ted Cruz is eligible for the presidency. I don't see any way around it, really.

Trump is right that the Scotus has not ruled on this narrow issue. They have not, and with the current mix of justices, I think any answer coming from them could be a political answer. Like with ObamaCare and Homosexual Marriage, that makes them impossible to predict.

I think Cruz's birth in Canada to a Cuban/Canadian father (I don't know if Cruz Sr was a Canadian or Cuban in 1970 when Ted Cruz was born.) is fodder for sowing doubt. I do think it can peel off support for Cruz. I know the birther wars here on FR got pretty intense and divided conservative from conservative, so maybe this will prevent some conservatives from supporting Cruz if he were to get the nomination. The hanging chad fiasco in Florida says that every vote could count. That probably would never be repeated in such a large, important state, but who knows.

I do believe the Trump/Cruz divide on Free Republic has lots of supporters on each side. It could cause trouble, and since I'm willing to vote for either man, I'd encourage a caring approach to anyone on either side.

171 posted on 01/10/2016 5:15:51 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
WRONG !
Free Republic has covered this issue before.
This disgusting Curse on our Nation named Barack Hussein Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro, has a real birth certificate, with his right footprint on it.
All you have to do is look for it.

The Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one guilty of TREASON ! ) has NO legitimate Social Security Number.
His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States.
Barack Obama Sr. was a "Transient Alien" because he did NOT intend on residing in the United States permanently.
Barack Obama Sr. was a dual citizen of Great Britain and Kenya, and NEVER a United States Citizen.
His mother could NOT impart U.S. citizen to her son, Barack Obama II,
because she did NOT meet the legal requirements to do so
,
at the time her son was born IN the Coast Provincial General Hospital, MOMBASA, KENYA at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961.
Democrats knew this and tried to eliminate the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement at least 8 times BEFORE Obama won his election in 2008.

Obama is NOT a United States Citizen, and is NOT a LEGAL IMMIGRANT.
He has no VISA allowing him into this country.
Barack Hussein Obama II IS ILLEGAL !
He should be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY, tried for TREASON, SENTENCED to death,
and then have his body deported back to Kenya. WHY IS IT that EVERYTHING the LAME Stream Media has done in support of the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF is based upon LIES ?

172 posted on 01/11/2016 2:32:29 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Ahhh, so THAT’S why Megyn Kelly asked Ted Cruz in the first debate “any word from God?” /sarc


173 posted on 01/11/2016 2:42:26 AM PST by Fresh Wind (Falcon 105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 last

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.

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