Our First And Third Congress Defined Natural Born Citizen

Nationality Act of 1790-1795 ^ | January 8th, 2016 | Uncle Sham

[Uncle Sham]

For a five year period of time, the term “Natural Born Citizen” had a definition which differed from the “two-citizen parents, born under United States jurisdiction” description generally accepted for most of this nation’s existence. The Nationality Act of 1790 referred to those born to citizens beyond Sea or out of the limits of the United States as being “natural born citizens”. Because of the term “citizens” as it pertains to parentage, there is an argument to be made that this requires two citizen parents for this to be allowed. Below is a quote from the 1790 Act. Since this act would have been enforced on a case by case basis, the term “children” could just as easily be “child”.

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

”And the children of CITIZENS of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: 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 States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”

This Act was repealed in 1795 and the term “natural born citizens” was changed to read “citizens”. What this did was tell us that a location of birth WAS PART of being a “natural born citizen”, and in fact, the location was someplace OTHER THAN “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States”. This also told us exactly what someone was who was born to citizens of the United States outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, a ”citizen” Once again, even in this case, there appears to be a need for two citizen parents.

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

”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 of 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 foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.”

The combination of these two Acts, passed when they were, in the order that they were passed, by many who helped form this nation, gives us a clear understanding of what they thought constituted a “natural born citizen”. The term did not disappear from the Constitution, nor has it ever been defined since this time so the category of “natural born citizen” still exists. Since it does still exist, it IS’NT someone born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. That leaves only one location that is acceptable and it has to be within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. It also seems that there is a requirement for two citizen parents.

Kenya, Canada. Neither one of them meet the standard.

[MosesKnows]

Answer

Thank you, I appreciate your answer. However, it only hints at why the founders laid down different citizenship requirements for presidential candidates than for congressional candidates.

What I have found so far is that the founders felt obligated to avoid the possibility of a presidential candidate having a divided allegiances because his parents were not both citizens of the same country.

A reading of the Federalist Papers reveals that the founders were very thorough in avoiding the corruption that always comes from mankind with power.

[chicken head]

any evidence? I seen some stuff but nothing concrete- all i know is he has a computer generated forged BC, and a bunch of fake photos.

[Oklahoma]

They definitely were trying to hide something, but what?

I believe the notice in the local paper was legitimate and is the simplest and best marker about where he was born. The Kenyan was not a wealthy man and the Dunhams didn’t have much as well making a trip to Africa unlikely. I think the birth certificate showed his real father. Later when Obama was applying for college aid and writing books he used the lie that he had been born in Kenya to be applied to his records. I think that is the real reason his college records were hidden.

Obama probably never dreamed that one day he would be in a position to run for president and the born in Kenya fiction would go from help to hindrance. That’s when the local flunkies in Hawaii helped him out by forging a new birth certificate.

[UCANSEE2]

No, that has never been so.

(It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you think you know that is all wrong)

"Prior to May 24, 1934, children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were United States citizens, acquired U.S. citizenship at birth unless the father had never "resided" in the United States prior to the child's birth. In the absence of a specific definition of "resided", the Immigration and Naturalization Service took the position that even a temporary sojourn by the U.S. citizen parent was sufficient to comply with this requirement.

Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the "1934 Statute") gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship. "

[Hostage]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3381517/posts?page=110#110

Obama is suspicious for other reasons. His birth documents and selective service registration documents are very suspicious, if not outright fraudulent. From everything I have read, seen, his documents are forgeries. There is a sense that his alleged mother was not his actual mother. These matters are left to the future to judge.

For now, if Obama’s alleged mother is his actual birth mother, regardless of technicalities of her age or time in Africa/USA at the time of his birth, it would appear he is a citizen, natural born of his mother, not naturalized.

However, even more than the high suspicion of Obama’s fraudulent past, there is the very real specter that his loyalties lie with cultural Marxism. He is not loyal to the United States. He is loyal to another ideology. All of this has led to conjectures and presumptions about his citizenship status, causing many people to create ‘rules’, ‘theories’ of natural citizenship to explain that he couldn’t possibly be eligible to be President because it’s not supposed to happen that the United States has a President that is not loyal to its Constitution, to its existence, to its people or to the freedom of those people.

So such theories try and shoehorn a line of reasoning that he’s not somehow a true natural American. That could be the case or not, we cannot know until a court of law or a Senate Trial (which will not happen now) pass a ruling. One thing has a high degree of possibility, that is if a GOP candidate like Donald Trump is elected President, then Obama’s documents can be prosecuted for forgery. That could open the whole can of worms that Obama appears to be hiding in.

[Yosemitest]

" If the 1790 Act never existed
and the 1795 Act using the term "citizen" was all we had to go on,
how would that suffice as definition of "natural born citizen"? "

IRRELEVANT and stupid question, meant only to distract from the definition our Founding Fathers gave us !

"Did they redefine, or perhaps, correct it with the repeal?"

If you are serious with your question, then do some research yourself.
If you're simply trying to distract for the definition given because you do not like that definition, then be gone !

BUT FOR OTHERS WHO REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.

... What happened next ...

The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy.
Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote.
During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.
... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797–1801; served 1797–1801), was known as the Federalists.
The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804).
The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities.
An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801–9).
The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed.

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.
The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen
and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized.
An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter.
The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess")
and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen.
These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges.

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law were restored except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...
• Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
  Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
  - by getting married!
  In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
  if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
  In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
  this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

For More Information

Books

Franklin, Frank G. The Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States. New York: Arno Press, 1969.

Jasper, Margaret C. The Law of Immigration. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 2000.

LeMay, Michael, and Elliot Robert Barkan, eds. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.

Periodicals

DeConcini, Christina, Jeanine S. Piller, and Margaret Fisher. "The Changing Face of Immigration Law." Social Education (November-December 1998): p. 462.

Web Sites

History, Genealogy and Education, U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/ (accessed on January 22, 2004).

[chicken head]

I agree with you, and believe his BC and selective service registration doc’s are forged along with photographs.. People that would make up stories and forge doc’s is a con man that stole someone else’s identity..sounds like to me.. I remember back in 08 when everyone was hot on the BC thing that someone found a death or death certificate of a Barack Obama in New York, but is long gone now- i looked for it again a couple of years ago with no luck.. From all the fake doc’s it would seem he is and using another name.. I mean thats all it can be, why make up fake documents and photos? just thinking out of the box

[Uncle Sham]

Your insults and huge font text did not answer my questions. Please impress me some other way.

[Yosemitest]

WHY feed the Piranha, WHEN all they’re going to do is CONTINUE their baseless attacks ?

[joliecajun]

I guess I look at this in a simple way. To me natural born citizen means that a person can be nothing but a citizen of the U.S. If someone has a parent who is from another country then that person could claim dual citizenship to the parent’s nation. That also applies to someone born in another country; they could claim dual citizenship for the country they were born in. A natural born citizen cannot claim any other citizenship except for the country he is born in and that his parents are citizens of. The founders wanted to be sure that the President had no possibility of being influenced by any other country.

[xzins]

This argument that Cruz is not eligible is sheer idiocy

The issue is current law. The Constitution gives Congress the power in the area of naturalization. That necessarily extends to citizenship and immigration.

According to current law, Ted Cruz is eligible for the presidency. I don't see any way around it, really.

Trump is right that the Scotus has not ruled on this narrow issue. They have not, and with the current mix of justices, I think any answer coming from them could be a political answer. Like with ObamaCare and Homosexual Marriage, that makes them impossible to predict.

I think Cruz's birth in Canada to a Cuban/Canadian father (I don't know if Cruz Sr was a Canadian or Cuban in 1970 when Ted Cruz was born.) is fodder for sowing doubt. I do think it can peel off support for Cruz. I know the birther wars here on FR got pretty intense and divided conservative from conservative, so maybe this will prevent some conservatives from supporting Cruz if he were to get the nomination. The hanging chad fiasco in Florida says that every vote could count. That probably would never be repeated in such a large, important state, but who knows.

I do believe the Trump/Cruz divide on Free Republic has lots of supporters on each side. It could cause trouble, and since I'm willing to vote for either man, I'd encourage a caring approach to anyone on either side.

[Yosemitest]

WRONG !
Free Republic has covered this issue before.
This disgusting Curse on our Nation named Barack Hussein Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro, has a real birth certificate, with his right footprint on it.
All you have to do is look for it.

The Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one guilty of TREASON ! ) has NO legitimate Social Security Number.
His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States.
Barack Obama Sr. was a "Transient Alien" because he did NOT intend on residing in the United States permanently.
Barack Obama Sr. was a dual citizen of Great Britain and Kenya, and NEVER a United States Citizen.

Read British National Archives Show Son Born To Obama Sr. In 1961 In Kenya!

His mother could NOT impart U.S. citizen to her son, Barack Obama II,
because she did NOT meet the legal requirements to do so,
at the time her son was born IN the Coast Provincial General Hospital, MOMBASA, KENYA at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961.
Democrats knew this and tried to eliminate the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement at least 8 times BEFORE Obama won his election in 2008.

Obama is NOT a United States Citizen, and is NOT a LEGAL IMMIGRANT.
He has no VISA allowing him into this country.
Barack Hussein Obama II IS ILLEGAL !
He should be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY, tried for TREASON, SENTENCED to death,
and then have his body deported back to Kenya.

"Official Washington and the Mainstream Media long ago pledged that "The First Black President" MUST bewildly successful, incredibly capable and, indeed, almost superhuman
so future generations of little black boys and girls will be inspired!"

WHY IS IT that EVERYTHING the LAME Stream Media has done in support of the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF is based upon LIES ?

[Fresh Wind]

Ahhh, so THAT’S why Megyn Kelly asked Ted Cruz in the first debate “any word from God?” /sarc