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This Act was repealed in 1795 and the term “natural born citizens†was changed to read “citizensâ€.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.
No problem. Ted’s mother can become his ‘father’!
Should delight all the liberals!
....until it was repealed in 1795.
What you don't get is that a child born to two citizen parents on the soil is unquestionable.
Any other scenario is.
What do you think the founders had in mind, seriously?
It is a national disgrace that the Republican Party and the American people did not demand a Supreme Court ruling on the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
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.
What does Orly say?
The first congress clearly defined children born outside the United States to be natural born citizens. The fact that a later congress changed the wording of this law cannot take that away. The fact that the first congress, which was made up of many of the founders, passed a law which said that the children of U.S. citizens born outside the United States are natural born citizens actually is strongly supportive of the fact that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.
Would still need to be born with the United States.
Posts like that make me lose respect for you and this site.
Alinsky is your offense now?
Please stop spouting nonsense like this. God defined "natural citizen". Congress defines who will be "like" a "natural citizen."
In the same manner God gives people children, but families are free to adopt others who were not born to them.
The law that stipulates that was repealed meaning it isn’t law anymore. The law that replaced that removed that from the context for a reason.
“God defined “natural citizen”. “
He did?
Oh please, its you Trump supporters that are pulling this birther nonsense. Trump supporters insult and attack all the time and then have the thinnest skin in the world. Honestly I thought this was a conservative site not a fascist one.
I thought we followed the laws as written. Apparently we are no better than DU.
It clearly did not. If it did, the first Congress would have said "Shall Be Natural born citizens", not "Shall be considered as natural born citizens. "
It is the 1795 repeal, along with the original, that gives us the definition. Two citizen parents and born under the jurisdiction of the United States. What are you arguing about?
A law can’t change the constitution or what the original constitutional meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen is. Note that the new law did not include any definition for a natural born citizen - the term has simply been abandoned. So, the only time it has been defined in U.S. law Ted Cruz clearly would have qualified since his mother was U.S. citizen and his father had been a legal U.S. resident.
We need him for our VP. TRUMP/CRUZ 2016!
Partus Sequitur Patrem, dude.
Ted Cruz’s father wasn’t a legal US resident at the time of Ted’s birth and the Naturalization Act of 1795 which is still law stipulates two citizen parents, not a legal resident.
Please provide the exact words in the Constitution that defines nature born citizen.
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.