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 citizensâ€. 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 “childâ€.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization†(March 26, 1790).
â€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.â€
This Act was repealed in 1795 and the term “natural born citizens†was changed to read “citizensâ€. What this did was tell us that a location of birth WAS PART of being a “natural born citizenâ€, and in fact, the location was someplace OTHER THAN “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United Statesâ€. 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 â€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).
â€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.â€
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 citizenâ€. 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.
It can’t. All it can do is help to show what the commonly understood meaning of the term was at the time. So, the first congress said that the children of U.S. citizens born oversees “shall be considered as natural born citizens” unless the father had never been resident in the U.S. This shows us that the commonly understood meaning of natural born citizen at the time the constitution was written included children born to U.S. citizens overseas. This should put to a final end this birther nonsense.
Ok, I am sorry I came across harshly. Please see my later post where I said that I may have been too dogmatic in my reply to you.
If you refer to any effort by Congress to determine the MEANING OF A PHRASE, then what you’re saying is that the Constitution is a living document. Really believe that? Or only when it suits you?
bump
If Ted Cruz was the “leader” he claims to be, he would be out in front of this discussion, opening his records for all to see, and demanding that the courts address the NBC issue..right now.
Instead, he has sealed his records and weasel worms his answers to make us believe that this is a “non-issue”.
This is exactly why we don’t need another “politician” in the White House. The bullshit stops here and now..it must, or we are indeed doomed.
It’s not you, it’s the topic. It drives me nuts. I need to steer clear of it.
Really?
I find it very interesting that using the definition adopted by many Cruz supporters, Ted Cruz would be a "natural born citizen" of Canada, the U.S., and Cuba.
Somehow its hard for me to believe that our Founders had that in mind.
That shows a bit of an open mind.
The terms don't mean the same thing. "Shall be considered [as, or to be]" is and was a legal term of art used to establish a legal fiction.
I'm making up a poor example, poor because no excise tax statute would be written this way, but "for purposes of excise taxation, an apple shall be considered as an orange" is a hypothetical legal fiction.
There are legal fictions in operation today. A patent application mailed via express mail is considered received in the patent office the instant it is deposited at the post office. This matters because the filing date on a patent application is the date it is received at the patent office, and filing date has a legal effect and relevance.
It’s not in the Constitution.
It’s here. In The Law of Nations by Vattel.
THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country — a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
Lets look at it this way. In reality, the moon is round. I tell you that it is actually square the first time I describe it to you. Then, after realizing my mistake, I tell you it is indeed round. Based upon my description, which should it be?
So Congress was really just REITERATING WHAT EVERYONE ALREADY KNEW... Why would they do that? Guess what? They didn’t do that. It’s a clue to inquiring minds.
One of the ways that legal scholars try to figure out the original intent of the constitution is to look at how that phrase was used in other documents from the same time period. Even better is other documents from the same time period that are written by many of the same authors. The only significance of the 1790 act is that it was written just a few years after the constitution was ratified and it had many of the same authors.
So, if the congress of 1790 which included many drafters of the constitution thought that children born to U.S. citizens outside the U.S. could be considered natural born citizens. Then it is likely that many of them had a similar view of what a natural born citizen was when they included the term in the constitution.
You are again missing the point that the immigration act of 1795 never redefined the term natural born citizen. They simply switched to using the shorter term citizen. Thus the new act said nothing about who was or was not a natural born citizen let alone shed any light on what the constitution meant when it uses that term.
Is that part of the constitution?
Is that part of the constitution?
The same is required for Ted Cruz.
And let the Constitution reign supreme.
P.S. There is an important role for patriot conservative Ted Cruz whichever way the Supremes decide.
So you're going to allow the likes of John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy decide his fate?
You assume a lot. Number one- There is only one condition of citizenship that is universally recognized and therefore never requires a statute of any kind: born on the soil, of two citizen parents. Every other condition requires statutes to establish citizenship. Natural-born seems pretty simple to reckon from that simple methodology. Obama is therefore not natural-born. Oh wait...
The final paragraph is just your own dazed misunderstanding, and has absolutely nothing to do with the congressional acts.
.
The text of the act of Congress above proves that Cruz is a natural born citizen.
There is no cause for court action, and it is not likely that the SCOTUS would entertain any action unless a lower court makes a finding contrary to the act.
Nope.
It was written about 1760. Widely known amongst the founders, and relied on by numerous Supreme Court cases. (including The Venus, US 12 253 and another decision I have found which came out of Pennsylvania about 1788).
So take it for what it’s worth. According to Vattel, in dubious cases like this one, the child is the son of the father, and follows his fathers rights and duties.
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.