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

To: Jim Robinson
Could somebody please address this hypothetical for me?

Imagine for a moment that the year is 1815. A woman who is a U.S. citizen by birth to two other citizens travels to Great Britain, where she then weds the ruling King of Great Britain and gives birth to the King's first son.

Would that son, the heir to the British throne, then be a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. and be eligible for the Presidency?

I can't imagine a case of more questionable loyalty and yet there are those on this thread who would believe that our Founders would have no problem with this.

35 posted on 06/12/2014 4:38:13 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell
The Naturalization act of 1795 accounted for that:

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

36 posted on 06/12/2014 5:18:45 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: William Tell
I can't imagine a case of more questionable loyalty and yet there are those on this thread who would believe that our Founders would have no problem with this.

What gets me is no one seems to notice the double standard that the feds (and the subsequent mouthpieces for the administrative organ) are tossing out.

According to them, a child born here of foreign parents is automatically a 'citizen of the United States' at birth, but a child born to a US citizen in a foreign country is NOT a citizen of THAT country, but ALSO a citizen of the united states at birth. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

Why don't they just go ahead and proclaim everyone in the world a citizen of the united states since the concept of national sovereignty is so meaningless to them?

37 posted on 06/12/2014 5:20:26 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: William Tell

The closest we came to this situation was Charles Bonaparte,who was Sec. of the Navy and AG under TR. He also founded the FBI, then known as the Bureau of Investigation. At birth, in Maryland, he was the second cousin of Napoleon III. His grandfather was Jerome Bonaparte, Napoleon I’s brother. And yes, he was a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President.


43 posted on 06/12/2014 5:50:08 AM PDT by gusty (9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | 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