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

To: editor-surveyor
Congress has the Constitutional power to determine laws for naturalization.

By saying, in 1790, that the children born to a U.S. father overseas are “natural born citizens” they are clarifying that they do not need “naturalization” into a state they were born into.

You were and remain wrong to say that one needed TWO citizen parents to be considered a citizen before the 14th Amendment and that those without two citizen parents needed to be naturalized.

They did not.

One parent (the father) was enough to be a citizen at birth and not need naturalization.

It is historic revisionism and absolutely incorrect to say that before the 14th they would not be citizens and would need naturalization if they only had one citizen parent.

142 posted on 08/25/2011 5:56:35 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream

You’re back to your twisting strawman games.

Congress’ powers WRT naturalization have nothing to do with the constitutional requirements for the presidency.

Congress saying anything does not change those requirements.

The two citizen parent requirement is not in any way in question, no matter how you may squirm. None of your questionable sources, nor rationalizations has the slightest bearing on the subject.

We have always had quislings like you in this country, and always will, but facts do not change. The massive compendium of foundational support for the two parent requirement in the constitution includes every Supreme court decision that addressed citizenship in any form or venue, and a vast number of learned essays and letters from leaders of the time.

.
>> “It is historic revisionism and absolutely incorrect to say that before the 14th they would not be citizens and would need naturalization if they only had one citizen parent.” <<

.
That is a complete strawman. I never made such a statement, but regardless, the person with only a father as a citizen would not be “natural born” and would not be elligible to the presidency.

Natural Born was a term that had and continues to have a special meaning, and does not include all persons born in country. Allegiance is what determines the issue, and split allegiance negates natural born status. Natural born has nothing to do with where you are born; its to whom you are born that counts.


148 posted on 08/25/2011 9:39:15 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Sarah Palin - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | 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