Ray, at least you are rational. You make points that have some validity to them.
Unlike that clown DiogenesLamp.
Here again you make a valid point, even if it's ultimately incorrect.
I don't fail to distinguish a difference in the meaning of "citizen" and "natural born citizen." I simply believe that when our Congresses subsequent to 1795 passed laws stating that children born abroad to US citizens were citizens, that they believed such children were natural born citizens, and that that was in fact their intention.
I'll put it another way: From the very beginning of our Republic, most people, including most of the public, most of our legislators, most lawyers, and most judges, including most of our Founding Fathers and their generation, believed that if you were a citizen at birth, then you were a "natural born citizen" and eligible to be President.
I think the historical evidence for that is very clear.
At the same time, there is almost no evidence at all that ANYBODY ever believed you had to be born on US soil AND have citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.
This belief appeared, among a FEW people, for the first time in US history, around 4 years ago.
So our Congresses, throughout history, didn't include the words "natural born" when they passed laws saying such people were citizens because (if they considered whether such people would be eligible to be President at all, which most of the time they didn't) they didn't notice any need to. Everybody pretty much understood that if you were born a citizen, then you were a natural born citizen.
In other words, if you are a CITIZEN, AND your CITIZENSHIP was acquired at the moment of your BIRTH, then you are a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
And, with the possible exception of the Third Congress in 1795, that has always been the intention of those Congresses who have passed our laws.
I hope that helps.
The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.
We know that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are different.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” by parental US citizenship.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.
In the centuries subsequent to the 1795 Act "natural born citizens" have continued to occur.
What other persons have parental US citizenship? Quite obviously those who are not "born beyond sea", i.e. those born within the US.
Congress in 1790 deliberately distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". Should we conclude that in 1795 Congress was no less deliberate when that distinction was removed?
And they are completely wasted on Jeff, because he is not. (Rational.)
Unlike that clown DiogenesLamp.
Being a clown is not so bad. It's MUCH Better than being a lap-dog, such as yourself.
Here again you make a valid point, even if it's ultimately incorrect.
His only mistake is being civil to you.
I'll put it another way: From the very beginning of our Republic, most people, including most of the public, most of our legislators, most lawyers, and most judges, including most of our Founding Fathers and their generation, believed that if you were a citizen at birth, then you were a "natural born citizen" and eligible to be President.
Which of course, fails to note the snake with the tail in it's mouth; That at the time, if you were a "citizen at birth" you were in fact, a "natural born citizen". The salient aspect being, of course, that you are born to someone from whom you could inherit citizenship.
I think the historical evidence for that is very clear.
It is absolutely clear, yet Jeff refuses to note or accept a jot of it. 100+ million Slaves, Indians, and Children of British Loyalists since the founding were denied citizenship though they met the birth on soil standard, and yet Jeff simply refuses to recognize the historical evidence. There had to be SPECIAL LAWS passed to GRANT them citizenship, Yet this idiot-bucket argues that they were "natural" citizens.
This belief appeared, among a FEW people, for the first time in US history, around 4 years ago.
Another propaganda meme from the Smogblow democrats.
So our Congresses, throughout history, didn't include the words "natural born" when they passed laws saying such people were citizens because (if they considered whether such people would be eligible to be President at all, which most of the time they didn't) they didn't notice any need to.
Alternatively, since they did not HAVE the power to make something "natural" which was not, they simply RECOGNIZED that their only power was that of "naturalization." You know, as explicitly spelled out in the powers of congress?
In other words, if you are a CITIZEN, AND your CITIZENSHIP was acquired at the moment of your BIRTH, then you are a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Yes, if you are a simple minded twit that is unable to think for yourself, such a simplistic concept is easy to remember. It isn't the truth, but such as you has no use for the truth.
Congress could pass a law right now naturalizing "at birth" everyone born in the world with blue eyes, and STUPID SH*THEAD JEFF will come along and claim "THEY ARE NATURAL BORN!"
The notion that Congress can just pass a law and MAKE someone "natural born" is a level of stupidity such that only a member of your special class of IDIOT can countenance it.
A special class of idiot that also objects to "anchor babies."