"Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no written national birthright rule until the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."
Yet, there are these:
1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the 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".
1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).
1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).
1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
The 'natural born' piece relies on some of the arguments used in the 'jurisdiction' piece, which is based on a faulty premise and much subjective argument. It also discussesd points of British common law but at the very top dismisses its own arguments by quoting George Mason: "The common law of England is not the common law of these States."
Both pieces are very subjective and should not be relied upon, nor can we tell the qualifications of the author. I think he must be a FReeper, based on the timing of some updates. However, its just a website, and as we know, not everything on the web is factual.
[calenel wrote:...
1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the 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”.
1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).
1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).
1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.
“All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”...]
TO calenel, I have been more than a little lazy in not having found the actual verbiage of the 1795 act which Donofrio has cited often enough (and thus I’ve ascribed, as he’s stated it enough and with emphasis), that what you refer to as generally referring to 1790 had in fact DROPPED “NATURAL BORN” in near-same reference. Donofrio is certainly aware of the later acts you cite and here you’ve even so shown the term “natural born” has not re-appeared.
I agree with Donofrio’s deduction (and someone please send me the exact 1795 ref if convenient) that the excising of the phrase in such near-same usage in near-same time frame by near-same legislators shows full intent and indeed constitutes full conscious act of elimination of “natural born” from the 1790 passage.
P.A. Madison (whoever this is and who cares) has quite rightly shown the War of 1812 was essentially fought over British application of its nefarious claim upon so-called “British” (first and one must assume some SECOND generation ex-colonials, looking at this from the Limey claim) sons in enforced conscription of some 6000 in the naval blockade that triggered the war. It can be thus assumed the issue was considered settled with the last act prior to the war and did not need to be repeated in any act subsequent.
Donofrio is correct here. I see it as the fulcrum of his case.
