Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RummyChick
-- There is a poster here who claims the passage of that law violated the Constitution and that is why the definition didn't show in 1795. --

The Wong Kim Ark case has a brief summary of the various pieces of legislation. He may be correct that there was objection to conferring "natural born" status to a person born off US soil. It would be interesting to read the Congressional record debating passage of the Acts of 1790 and 1795.

Citizenship, at least, was conferable by citizen parents from 1790-1802, and from 1855-. The way I read this, a foreign-born child after 1802 would also obtain US citizenship from a parent, provided the parents' citizenship was acquired in or before 1802.

It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802; and that the act of 1855, like every other act of congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States.

-- Why define it if born overseas and not if born in country. -- There was no question that a child born of two citizens, in country, is a natural born citizen. And at the time, there were MANY examples of people born in the country to non-citizens, and those people were NOT citizens.

514 posted on 07/31/2009 2:12:58 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

— Why define it if born overseas and not if born in country. — There was no question that a child born of two citizens, in country, is a natural born citizen. And at the time, there were MANY examples of people born in the country to non-citizens, and those people were NOT citizens.

Think about what you just said. It hinges on the definition of citizen. They defined it in the first part of the act..and an alien could be a citizen.

So born of two citizens..not necessarily two natural born citizens.

If that is the interpretation that SCOTUS chooses then Obamanazi could not be a natural born citizen as his father was not a citzen but a child born of two aliens who have become citizens could be President whether or not born on US soil.


517 posted on 07/31/2009 2:24:11 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson