Barron Trump gets a standing ovation at his father’s Florida rally: ‘First time he’s ever done this’

New York Post ^ | July 10, 2024 | Victor Nava

[nickcarraway]

Donald Trump’s youngest son, Barron Trump, received a standing ovation Tuesday at his father’s Florida rally in what the former president suggested was the teenager’s debut on the campaign trail.

Barron, 18, turned and waved to the crowd of Trump supporters at his father’s Doral golf course as the former president praised him for his smarts, demeanor and rising popularity.

“This is a young man. He just turned 18 – Oh, look at this,” the 78-year-old former president said, stopping as the crowd’s cheers intensified.

[one guy in new jersey]

Okay Mark Levin.

[one guy in new jersey]

As in, a meaningless, toothless NBC requirement is now a permanent feature of the U.S. national political landscape?

[Tired of Taxes]

RE: College

The press is claiming Barron is considering NYU. Some people are betting he'll play basketball, and the odds are on St. John's University and the University of Miami. But, Trump said Barron was thinking about his alma mater - UPenn Wharton.

The Trump children have always gone to UPenn and Georgetown, and they donate to UPenn.

Don Jr. graduated from UPenn Wharton with a B.S. in Economics.

Ivanka went to Georgetown for two years and then transferred to UPenn Wharton where she graduated with a B.S. in Economics.

Eric went to Georgetown and graduated with a degree in finance and management.

Tiffany took a different path. She graduated from UPenn with a degree in sociology, and then she went to Georgetown's law school.

If Barron picks any other university, it will be surprising.

[RoosterRedux]

Well, of course, there's a good deal of debate over that issue, isn't there?

And, if you have read the Bible, you'll notice that there isn't a single mention--not one--of God having an earthbound vicar or an official world-wide bureaucracy. And BTW, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter.

It looks like the Church of Rome has taken it upon themselves to create a great deal of new "traditions" upon which to build their earthbound vicarage. And very little about it seems to have anything to do with the Gospel.

And of course, your current earthbound vicar (Frankie the Foul) would be the perfect example of why the Gospel doesn't want, need, or seek to create such a bureaucracy. Humans, fallen as they are, don't create very good organizations. They quickly get too greedy, too politically ambitious, and too interested in earthly pleasures to be trustworthy as vicars of a single monopolistic purveyor of the Gospel.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life." He did not say that my earthbound vicarage is the Way, Truth, or Life.

[woodpusher]

One parent is enough.

If born in the USA, actually zero citizen parents will do fine. It is not a factor at all.

https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030101.html

8 FAM 301.1

FAM is the Foreign Affairs Manual of the Department of State which controls American birth citizenship decisions.

d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:

(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;

(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and

(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

Born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is determinative. Parentage, not mentioned in 14A, is irrelevant for U.S. births. Parentage is relevant regarding foreign births.

[FLT-bird]

As in the courts never interpreted natural born citizen to exclude a kid born on US territory.

[woodpusher]

Gaslight ER.

Mighty fine research.

It wasn’t until November 2008 that the fact of Chet Arthur’s father’s fatally (for Arthur’s claim to be an NBC) delayed citizenship oath became publicly known or even suspected.

William Arthur emigrated from Ireland to Canada, not the United States. William Arthur migrated to the Province of Lower Canada on date uncertain, circa 1819-1820. Lower Canada would now be in the Province of Quebec. Chester Arthur's mother Malvina met his father while William Arthur was living in Canada.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829. His father, William Arthur, was naturalized 31 August 1843.

Chester Arthur became Vice President and then President in 1881.

Of course, the naturalization was public record since 1843. William Arthur's ctizenship was published in Russia in 1881, in Novoe Vremya, and translated and published in the New York Herald, the largest circulation daily in the United States. The essence of it was published in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in 1881. "Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner," was published in the New York Times, Dec. 22, 1880. And, of course, Arthur's citizenship was the subject of a book published in 1884 while Arthur was still in office, "How a British Subject Became President of the United States," by A.P. Hinman. It was not that nobody knew. It was that nobody cared about your crackpot theory then any more than they do now.

It had to wait until the 21st century for the birthers to understand that William Arthur was a got-off-the-boat Irishman and preacher in a dozen churches.

Arthur P. Hinman was hired by the Democrat party to dig dirt on Arthur prior to his assuming office. Dig, dig, dig led to his book. As the book notes, "Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1884, by A. P. Hinman, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C."

As the 1884 Hinman biography of William Arthur shows, William Arthur did not emigrate from Ireland to the United States, but to Canada, and it was in Canada where he met Chester Arthur's mother. They married in Canada. As Chester Arthur's mother was a United States citizen, any challenge to the citizenship of Chester Arthur had to rely on his father not being a United States citizen at the time of birth.

Amazingly, after your thorough research and due diligence, you concluded, "It wasn’t until November 2008 that the fact of Chet Arthur’s father’s fatally (for Arthur’s claim to be an NBC) delayed citizenship oath became publicly known or even suspected."

[one guy in new jersey]

“...any challenge to the citizenship of Chester Arthur had to rely on his father not being a United States citizen at the time of birth...”

All the attacks on Chet’s eligibility centered on allegations that he was born not in Vermont but in Canada, his mother’s lifelong U.S. citizenship having (rightly) never been questioned, and his father’s U.S. citizenship having been (falsely) assumed by all to be timely.

Russia? Brooklyn Eagle? Nothing on William. Why make things up—are you trolling, are you daft...what is it?

[woodpusher]

All the attacks on Chet’s eligibility centered on allegations that he was born not in Vermont but in Canada, his mother’s lifelong U.S. citizenship having (rightly) never been questioned, and his father’s U.S. citizenship having been (falsely) assumed by all to be timely.

Of course the only legal attacks on Chester Arthur's eligibility do not center on the citizenship of his father. Not because the foreign citizenship of the father was unknown, but as a legal argument, it is manifestly stupid. Not even a political operative, a New York lawyer, hired to do a hit piece on Arthur, would consider such a ridiculous legal argument.

Everyone knew William Arthur was a foreigner. He was a preacher and he spoke off-the-boat English.

The information that Chester Arthur's father was an Irish citizen was a matter of very public record. The information that William Arthur immigrated to Canada, was a teacher in Canada, and got married in Canada was public knowledge. How the hell could Hinman research and write a book and not know that William Arthur was not a citizen when Chet was born???

Prominently plastered on the pages of the New York Times, 12/22/1880, regarding Hinman was the following: "He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner."

There was this New York lawyer, hired to find proof that Arthur was an unnaturalized foreigner, and he missed the New York Times.

You may be delighted to know that James Buchanan's British-born father emigrated to the U.S. in 1783, having sailed from Derry, like William Arthur. President Buchanan was born 23 April 1793, a natural born United States citizen.

Russia? Brooklyn Eagle? Nothing on William.

You can admit it. You have not read them and have no idea what they say, or do not say.

That Chester Arthur's father was Irish was so well known that a St. Petersburg, Russia correspondent wrote about the alleged Irish citizenship of President Chester Arthur in 1881, which was republished in the New York Herald.

(By cable to the Herald.)

London, December 12, 1881

Our St. Petersburg correspondent telegraphs under the date of the 9th:—To-day's Novoe Vremya contains the following article, which I translate literally, without softening or accentuating the opprobrious language of the article:—"Arthur's Message to Congress is surprisingly strange if the telegraphic version before us be accurate. It congratulates Americans on their growing prosperity, as if this was anything new to the honorable Yankees. Arthur takes upon himself his views on foreign politics. France and Germany receive friendly patronage, but with regard to the the much talked of friendship with England not a word is said; and how could it be expected from an Irishman? Arthur even refrains from making comments on English home affairs—the Irish rebellion, for instance, which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are also born Irishmen like the President. ...

Where on Earth did they get the idea that President Chester Arthur was an Irish citizen? Do you think they got that idea from his American mother? Could it be they were referring his father having been an Irish citizen. Or as you infer, nobody knew of William Arthur's Irish citizenship until 2008, so they just plucked Irish citizenship out of the air and applied it to President Chester Arthur.

Hinman was hired by the Democrat party and Senator Bayard was a democrat. Arthur became Vice President on March 4, 1881 and he became President on September 20, 1881. In January 1881, the author of the book was already working on that citizenship crap.

New York, January 7th, 1881.

Hon. Thos. F. Bayard, U. S. Senator

Dear Sir:—What is the construction of Article II, § 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States—that "No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc, shall be eligible, etc." * * *

Yours respectfully

A. P. HINMAN

Hinman asked, Bayard answered.

Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881

A. P. Hinman, Esq., New York

Dear Sir:—In response to your letter of the 7th instant—the term "natural born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be as native of the U. S.

The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.

Yours respectfully,

T. F. BAYARD

Oh, what to do? Anyone a native of the U.S. was a natural born citizen. He had to make believe Arthur was not born in the United States.

[one guy in new jersey]

“...Hinman research and write a book and not know that William Arthur was not a citizen when Chet was born???...”

Admittedly it seems unlikely.

That’s not the same as it being untrue.

A HUGE issue was made, including most notably by Hinman, of the entirely FALSE claim that Chet was born in Vermont.

Yet Chet’s true vulnerability was his father’s foreign citizenship at birth.

Chet must have been obsessed with cutting researchers off at the pass, or throwing them off the scent, or SOMETHING, because he took the incredible step just before his death of torching in a metal barrel the entire documentary history of his life and presidency.

Though seemingly unlikely, it may be the case that Hinman and his notorious cymbal-clanging efforts constituted an elaborate put-up job intentionally designed to get Chet’s true political enemies distracted looking down a known false rabbit hole of suspected foreign birth, so that Chet’s true vulnerability—his foreign paternity at birth—might go entirely unexamined and unsuspected.

A huge head fake.

[woodpusher]

A HUGE issue was made, including most notably by Hinman, of the entirely FALSE claim that Chet was born in Vermont.

Yet Chet’s true vulnerability was his father’s foreign citizenship at birth.

The monkey poo flung by the 19th century birthers was first that Arthur had been born in Ireland, and only when that claim was shown to be absurd, did they move on to claim he had been born in Canada.

The claim of birth in Vermont was never proved false by Hinman, or anyone else. The claim of birth in Ireland was proven false.

The Proceedings of the Vermont Historical Society, Autumn 1970 Vol. xxxviii No.4, pg. 292:

The public got its first real glimpse of Arthur's background in a campaign polemic by General James S. Brisbin, a lively volume published shortly after the Garfield Arthur nominations. Within a 23-page sketch of Arthur's life it was noted that he had been born at Fairfield, Franklin County, Vermont, October 5th, 1830. Shortly, during the summer and fall of 1880, rumors spread of evidence that Arthur had been born in a foreign country (first it was Ireland, then Canada), was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the Vice Presidency. Much attention was paid to these stories after Garfield's assassination, an act which the assassin said publicly was designed to put Arthur into the White House.

The story of an Irish birthplace was clearly false and was not pursued by investigators, but Arthur's alleged Canadian origin attracted a concentrated inquiry. The Sun, a leading New York newspaper long associated with the Democratic Party, conducted an investigation in the summer of 1881, while Garfield lay mortally wounded, and concluded that the rumors were unfounded.

On the other hand, Samuel Tilden the scholarly leader of the Democrats in 1876, said, in April, 1882, that he was convinced by the evidence that Arthur had been born in Canada and was illegally occupying the Presidency. A New York attorney named Arthur P. Hinman published a book in early 1884 entitled How a British Subject Became President of the United States.

As I noted, Attorney Hinman pursued the meritless argument of Arthur's father's foreign citizenship and was informed by Senator Bayard that it was legally meritless. Attorney Hinman was informed that, "the term "natural born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S." Attorney Hinman was informed that if Arthur was a native of the U.S., he was a natural born citizen. Thus, attorney Hinman attempted to show that Arthur was not a native of the U.S.

The non-existent citizen parent argument has been failing for centuries.

As I already provided:

Hinman was hired by the Democrat party and Senator Bayard was a democrat. Arthur became Vice President on March 4, 1881 and he became President on September 20, 1881. In January 1881, the author of the book was already working on that citizenship crap.

New York, January 7th, 1881.

Hon. Thos. F. Bayard, U. S. Senator

Dear Sir:—What is the construction of Article II, § 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States—that "No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc, shall be eligible, etc." * * *

Yours respectfully

A. P. HINMAN

Hinman asked, Bayard answered.

Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881

A. P. Hinman, Esq., New York

Dear Sir:—In response to your letter of the 7th instant—the term "natural born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.

The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.

Yours respectfully,

T. F. BAYARD

Yet Chet’s true vulnerability was his father’s foreign citizenship at birth.

As attorney Hinman was informed by Senator Bayard, neither Chester Arthur, nor anyone else in history born in the United States, was vulnerable to birther bullcrap based on parental citizenship. The legal basis of this claim was known to be nonsense in 1881 and before. Creative fiction writing does not change that well documented fact.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.

[one guy in new jersey]

In other words, I’m right. Nobody suspected his father’s foreign citizenship at his birth.

[woodpusher]

In other words, I’m right. Nobody suspected his father’s foreign citizenship at his birth.

You are always right because you declare it so.

Nobody suspected William Arthur's foreign citizenship as of 1829, not even the person who signed his naturalization papers on 31 August 1843, and made his naturalization a matter of official record. Only aliens are eligible for naturalization. As a matter of public record, William Arthur was certified to have been an alien until 31 August 1843.

Nobody who read the New York Times of December 22, 1880 stating, "Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner," could have suspected William Arthur's foreign birth.

Nobody who read A.P. Hinman's claim that Chester Arthur was born in Ireland could have suspected that William Arthur was Irish.

Indeed, nobody who heard the words that came out of the mouth of the Rev. William Arthur every Sunday could have even suspected that he was of foreign birth. They must have suspected he sounded as he did because of a speech impediment.

Nobody reading the following passage from the book, "How a British Subject Became President of the United States," by Arthur P. Hinman, could possibly have suspected that William Arthur had been a natural born subject of the king:

Almost a century ago there lived in Ballymena, County Antrim, Ireland, a Scotchman named Gavin MacArthur. He had a wife and several children, and had emigrated from Scotland, on account of a family difficulty, arising from his having embraced the Protestant religion while his friends and relatives were of the Roman Catholic faith. Shortly after his arrival in Ireland his religious zeal caused him to change his family name from MacArthur to Arthur. It is understood that he made this change to distinguish his branch of the family from that of the Roman Catholic branch.

In the year 1796, a son was born to this Gavin Arthur, and he was named William Arthur, in honor of William of Orange. This boy was educated at what was then known as the Blue School, in Belfast. He simply acquired a common school education. On leaving school, in the year 1818, he emigrated in a sailing vessel from Derry, Ireland, to Three Rivers, in Canada. It may here be remarked that, like a great many of the young men of his age, he was very fond of the three great evils of this life, viz: R. W. T.

"Billy" Arthur, as he was familiarly called by his associates in Canada, came direct from Three Rivers to a place called Upper Mills, now known as Stanbridge, Canada, looking for employment as a teacher. He offered to give lessons in writing, being a fine penman, at a very small salary. He was engaged for one term in the year 1819. Two of his scholars at that time, Erastus Chandler and Luther Burley, are still living.

Nobody who read the New York Times, December 22, 1880, stating "Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner," could possibly have had cause to suspect that father William Arthur was foreign born.

Nobody who read the New York Herald, December 1881, could have suspected that William Arthur was born a foreigner.

(By cable to the Herald.)

London, December 12, 1881

Our St. Petersburg correspondent telegraphs under the date of the 9th:—To-day's Novoe Vremya contains the following article, which I translate literally, without softening or accentuating the opprobrious language of the article:—"Arthur's Message to Congress is surprisingly strange if the telegraphic version before us be accurate. It congratulates Americans on their growing prosperity, as if this was anything new to the honorable Yankees. Arthur takes upon himself his views on foreign politics. France and Germany receive friendly patronage, but with regard to the the much talked of friendship with England not a word is said; and how could it be expected from an Irishman? Arthur even refrains from making comments on English home affairs—the Irish rebellion, for instance, which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are also born Irishmen like the President. ...

Nope, "[n]obody suspected his father’s foreign citizenship at his birth." Everyone could only suspect that having a baby transformed an alien into a citizen. Apparently they all confused making a baby with naturalization. Everybody back then was really, really stupid.

Of course, nobody had cause to suspect William Arthur was a U.S. citizen when Chester Arthur was born because William Arthur had not been naturalized, and there is no apparent claim by anyone that William Arthur was a U.S. citizen when Chester Arthur was born.

The Proceedings of the Vermont Historical Society, Autumn 1970 Vol. xxxviii No.4, pg. 292:

The public got its first real glimpse of Arthur's background in a campaign polemic by General James S. Brisbin, a lively volume published shortly after the Garfield Arthur nominations. Within a 23-page sketch of Arthur's life it was noted that he had been born at Fairfield, Franklin County, Vermont, October 5th, 1830. Shortly, during the summer and fall of 1880, rumors spread of evidence that Arthur had been born in a foreign country (first it was Ireland, then Canada), was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the Vice Presidency.

Clearly, nobody had cause to suspect William Arthur was an alien when Chester Arthur was born, not even the people who spread such crap.

While A.P. Hinman toiled tirelessly to show that Chester Arthur was not a U.S. citizen, when he inquired of Senator Bayard as to who were the natural born citizens referred to in the Constitution, he received the reply:

Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881

A. P. Hinman, Esq., New York

Dear Sir:—In response to your letter of the 7th instant—the term "natural born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be as native of the U. S.

The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.

Yours respectfully,

T. F. BAYARD

Every child, native born to the United States and subject to its laws, was automatically at birth a citizen of the United States. This was so before the 14th Amendment which incorporated this into the Constitution and placed it beyond the power of Congress to change. There was every reason to believe that whether William Arthur's citizenship in 1829 had been Irish, Canadian, or American, it did not make a good hot damn to the natural born citizenship of Chester Arthur or his eligibility to be President.

Other than that, nobody had reason to suspect that Chester Arthur's father was not a citizen when Chester Arthur was born.

[one guy in new jersey]

The naturalization record in question never surfaced. The public and all of Chet’s detractors were unaware.

Face facts. You are pushing a myth.

[woodpusher]

This Act of the State of Maryland predates the Constitution, it made Lafayette a natural born citizen.

17 Maryland Laws 378 (1784)

CHAP. XII.

An ACT to naturalize major-general the marquis de la Fayette and his heirs male for ever.

WHEREAS the general assembly of Maryland, anxious to perpetuate a name dear to the state, and to recognize the marquis de la Fayette for one of its citizens, who, at the age of nineteen, left his native country, and risked his life in the late revolution; who, on his joining the American army, after being appointed by congress to the rank of major-general, disinterestedly refused the usual rewards of command, and sought only to deserve what he attained, the character of patriot and soldier; who, when appointed to conduct an incursion into Canada, called forth by his prudence and extraordinary discretion the approbation of congress; who, at the head of an army in Virginia, baffled the manœuvres of a distinguished general, and excited the admiration of the oldest commanders; who early attracted the notice and obtained the friendship of the illustrious general Washington; and who laboured and succeeded in raising the honour and the name of the United States of America: Therefore,

II. Be it enacted, by the general assembly of Maryland, That the marquis de la Fayette, and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and privileges.

Damn. French Lafayette was made a natural born citizen before the Constitution was Framed or adopted. There just ain't no telling what a sovereign state might do. And, as Maryland did this before the Constitution....

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...."

Lafayette was a citizen, nay a natural born citizen, before the adoption of the Constitution. How, in 1784, did those turtles know to use that exact phrase?

[one guy in new jersey]

The term “natural born citizen” was used by John Adams in proposed drafts of the Treaty of Paris circa 1783.

[woodpusher]

The term “natural born citizen” was used by John Adams in proposed drafts of the Treaty of Paris circa 1783.

Perhaps you could provide a link to these elusive "drafts of the Treaty of Paris circa 1783."

What remains is that the free, sovereign and independent pre-Constitution State of Maryland in a statute stated, "the marquis de la Fayette, and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof...."

I provided link, cite, and quote of a statute giving natural born citizenship to Layfayette who had zero American parents.

[one guy in new jersey]

It was an honorary naturalization.

Naturalization under the current Constitution falls under Article II (powers of Congress).

NFN but the 14th Amendment is really nothing more than a glorified naturalization statute.

The language you refer to with respect to Lafayette is similar in a certain way to that used by Adams in his treaty draft. Rights held by U.S. NBCs granted by (draft) treaty to British natural born subjects.

Busy now. Go look for it, you’ll find it.

[one guy in new jersey]

Use the search term “plenipotentiary”.

[woodpusher]

It was an honorary naturalization.

Please quote any part that says a mumbling word about honorary.

II. Be it enacted, by the general assembly of Maryland, That the marquis de la Fayette, and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and privileges.

By the Senate, Dec. 28, 1784
Read and assented to.
By Order.
J. Dwight

By the House of Delegates,
December 28th, 1784.
Read and assented to.
By Order.
W. Harwood

WM. PACA

George Washington to Lafayette, 23 December 1784

[excerpt]

P.S. You & your heirs, Male, are made Citizens of this State by an Act of Assembly—You will have an Official Accot of it—this is by the by.2

[...]

2. By “this State” GW means Maryland. On 22 Jan. 1785 Gov. William Paca signed “An act to naturalize major-general the marquis de la Fayette and his heirs male for ever” (Md. House of Delegates Proceedings).

- - - - -

The language you refer to with respect to Lafayette is similar in a certain way to that used by Adams in his treaty draft.

You have not produced a single word of any such document, or any evidence of its existence.

NFN but the 14th Amendment is really nothing more than a glorified naturalization statute.

LMAO. 14A, Section 1 is called the CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE for a reason. It does not confer naturalization upon anyone.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Busy now. Go look for it, you’ll find it.

No. It is your imaginary document. You look for it. If you find it, I will consider it.

As shown by the introduction of the 14A citizenship clause by Mr. Howard, his intent of the clause was quite clear and specific.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques­tion is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]

Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the juris­diction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that sub­ject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.