To: Yosemitest
Do you NOT believe that the AMENDMENTS TO the Constitution, ARE part of the Constitution, AND JUST AS VALID AS the Constition ? In defining what an Article II natural born Citizen is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of natural born Citizen in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendments citizen to Article IIs natural born Citizen. But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer natural born citizen status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen
81 posted on
01/10/2016 3:51:25 AM PST by
Godebert
To: Godebert
WRONG AGAIN !
Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?
IF YOU 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.
... What happened next ...
The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy.
Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote.
During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797-1801; served 1797-1801), was known as the Federalists.The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804).
The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities.
An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801-9).The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed.
In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen
and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized.
An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter.
The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess")
and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen.
These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges.
In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a lawthat required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.
After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law were restored except for the period of residency before naturalization.The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.
The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.
Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.
Did you know ...
Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenshipif she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.
For More Information
Books
Franklin, Frank G. The Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States. New York: Arno Press, 1969.
Jasper, Margaret C. The Law of Immigration. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 2000.
LeMay, Michael, and Elliot Robert Barkan, eds. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.
Periodicals
DeConcini, Christina, Jeanine S. Piller, and Margaret Fisher. "The Changing Face of Immigration Law." Social Education (November-December 1998): p. 462.
Web Sites
History, Genealogy and Education, U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/ (accessed on January 22, 2004).
83 posted on
01/10/2016 4:01:11 AM PST by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Godebert
Just my 2 cents, but even if the framers only meant one parent a citizen to a child born on foreign soil, it never would have been only the mother. Women were citizens but for all practical purposes a secondary class of citizen (they could not vote). The father’s citizenship would have determined the citizenship status of the child.
84 posted on
01/10/2016 4:06:16 AM PST by
Abby4116
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson