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

To: jcsjcm

Can you point me to the law that states that children born oversea to Americans are not natural born citizens, unless the parents work for the government?


464 posted on 10/07/2009 4:17:33 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies ]


To: trumandogz
Can you point me to the law that states that children born oversea to Americans are not natural born citizens, unless the parents work for the government?

It's an interesting question, but I'm sure you already know the answer -- even if you don't want to admit it.

The Constitution is full of "terms-of-art", i.e. words that had an accepted meaning at the time, and didn't need additional definition.

"Natural-born citizen" is one of them. The Framers relied heavily on legal texts that were published at the time. Those included definitions of a natural-born citizen, and both effectively defined them as "born on the soil, to citizen parents", with exceptions for those abroad in "service of the state/king".

Congress should have enacted a law that codifies this, but the fact they haven't doesn't mean the criteria isn't in effect. If they were to enact a law contrary to these definitions, it would be subject to a challenge (although not necessarily successful).

477 posted on 10/07/2009 4:31:17 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies ]

To: trumandogz

It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘’the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .’’ 96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. 97 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. 98 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ‘’case or controversy’’ as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.

So, I guess the section I saw on military personnel was not the only law in place. It seems they’ve adopted the born of 2 American citizens are considered natural born. And you wonder why constitutional law can be twisted so easily. This needs to be tightened up so that there is not a lot of interpretation room available. Its just nuts!


494 posted on 10/07/2009 4:47:35 PM PDT by jcsjcm (American Patriot - follow the Constitution and in God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | 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