Replies

“In this context, the naturals, born in the country of CITIZEN parents, can NOT be defined any other way than Natural Born Citizens.”

No, because A) Vattel was discussing European law, not English or American law, and B) because he was pretty clear who he was talking about: “Les naturals, ou indigenes”.

Notice the Constitution does not require EITHER a “natural” or “indigenous” person be President (thus following Vattel and European law), but a “natural born citizen”. Thus the OBVIOUS conclusion is that American law was taking its lead from English common law and the term “natural born subject” - mearely exchanging “subject” with “citizen”.

And in fact, one of the ratifying states used the terms NBS & NBC interchangeably in their laws and proclamations. Natural born subject was a term the Founders used to describe themselves when they wrote the King before the Revolution.

Back as far as 1829, a court case said, ““The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing.” Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73

In State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838), we find, ““Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”

In Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844) we find, “Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”

These cases were cited by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark:

“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

To repeat for emphasis:

“The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

It was well established law in the US prior to 1900 and thus over 100 years before Obama that NBC was the American version of NBS. That is why no court paid attention to the birthers screaming Vattel - because Vattel had nothing to do with the meaning of “natural born subject” - which the Founders regularly used for decades.

But as a practical matter, as a matter of politics, 8 years of Obama means IT IS OVER. You can run around saying someone can’t be President because their parents were not both US citizens and it we be as persuasive as running around with cloves of garlic and accusing the person of being a vampire!

Legally, it was over by the 1890s. Politically, Obama buried it. You can run around with tin foil over your head and with cloves of garlic hanging from your neck, but all you will do is look like a lunatic!

None of this has anything to do with chain migration or illegal migration. An exception to Natural Born SUBJECT was that the child had to be born to parents who were living under the King’s authority, and thus invaders and ambassadors and anyone born to parents who were not there with the King’s permission were not natural born subjects - and thus would not be natural born citizens of the US.

And there are only two ways to be a US citizen: by birth, or through naturalization. Thus someone who isn’t a citizen by birth - such as a child born to an invading army - must be naturalized to BECOME a citizen.

This will be my last post on this thread. I see little value in debating it. No matter what ANYONE on this thread thinks, it is over. Cloves of garlic will not help bring Vattel back from the dead.