Replies

"The argument for Cruz’s eligibility hinges on the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The problem is, this act was repealed.
And, no other subsequent laws by Congress ever used the words “natural born citizen.”
They didn’t because they don’t, because of the Constitution, redefine the term as used by the Framers, “natural born citizen.”
Anyone who know what the Framers intended, will not confuse the term “natural born citizen” with “citizen.”"

How STUPID CAN YOU GET with THAT CIRCLE 'STRAW MAN" Argument ?
The ORIGINAL DEFINITION has ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED !

You can READ THE FOUNDING FATHERS OWN DEFINITION OF "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN:" .
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 law
that 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After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).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 citizenship
if 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.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:

1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Anyone who know what the Framers intended, will not confuse the term `natural born citizen’ with `citizen.’

Precisely. All natural born citizens are also citizens, but all citizens are not necessarily also natural born citizens. This is the point. Period.

Some here seem to be intentionally muddling that important distinction because they know it means that all a foreign-born candidate can hope for is citizenship. A citizen not a natural born citizen can serve in any job in this great country but two: president or vice-president.

This is the same argument we made seven years ago; arguing to the contrary can only be attributed to zealous partisanship.

Also (as some one else in this thread pointed out), it is pointless to cite a complex string of statutes and acts that support your position that a citizen is also a natural born citizen because the only way that Article 1, section 2 clause 5 can be changed is with a constitutional amendment.
We all know, or should know that ....

The only reason anyone would do that would be to throw as much as possible against the wall, hoping that something stuck.

It is painful to see the contortions of some here trying to square this circle by tormenting this ancient logical proof:
Socrates is an Athenian
All Athenians are Greeks
Socrates is Greek.

`But hold on! Maybe Socrates was a northern Athenian. And not all Athenians were Attic Greek, some were visitors, basement dwellers, so not all were Greek ... if Socrates was `Greek’ then so is my candidate, Alcibiades. And it isn’t fair that Cleo was from Sicily but allowed to run for counsel while my man cannot. Let me present the ruling of the Archons, subsection three of Article four, ii. 8392 where Pericles measured his foot and found that Socrates was actually ...’ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ockhams/Occam’s razor, or `the principle of parsimony’: “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected”.

There’s no reason to `reinvent the wheel’ here, unless one has an ulterior motive; we don’t need anyone to speak for the framers of the Constitution—they spoke for themselves.

The framers used two words: “natural born citizens’ and “citizens” in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5.

Every president since the first American president, Martin Van Buren, has been born on American soil: a natural born citizen; all of the presidents before him—citizens—were born in the American British colonies.

In that context, why is that? Why was every single American-British president and American president born on American soil?
Could it be that the distinction between “natural born citizens” and “citizens” was their understanding of the clause as well?

Don’t make yourselves crazy over this, FRiends. It’s not that complicated unless you make it, or allow it to be made complicated.