Posted on 01/08/2016 6:52:06 PM PST by 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 citizensâ€. 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 “childâ€.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization†(March 26, 1790).
â€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.â€
This Act was repealed in 1795 and the term “natural born citizens†was changed to read “citizensâ€. What this did was tell us that a location of birth WAS PART of being a “natural born citizenâ€, and in fact, the location was someplace OTHER THAN “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United Statesâ€. 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 â€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).
â€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.â€
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 citizenâ€. 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.
The new law simply abandoned the term natural born citizen. It didn’t redefine it. The only time the term “natural born citizen” has been defined in U.S. law it simply required one of the parents to have been a U.S. citizen and the father to have been a resident at one time of the United States. Ted Cruz clearly passes this standard. Case Closed.
Big Orly Taitz fan, are you?
Big Orly Taitz fan, are you?
This is exactly correct. Only a constitutional amendment can change the constitution.
Both of these were laws. Natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution. The first version assigned a meaning to a persons status based upon a set of circumstances. The second version, which repealed the first version, changed the meaning using those same circumstances. The first meaning no longer applies.
The 1790 act simply required a child born outside the U.S. to have one citizen parent. Additionally a child could not be a natural born citizen if their “fathers have never been resident in the United States.” Ted Cruz’s father had previously been a legal resident of the United States and his mother was a U.S. citizen. Thus according to the first Congress he was a natural born citizen.
Hornswaggling, commie adherents to Mohammadism?
Neither law is still in effect. There have been many amendments over the years which have changed exactly what needs to happen for a child born outside the U.S. to have citizenship at birth. However, the fact that the first congress, which included many of the drafters of the constitution, said that children born outside the United States could be natural born citizens completely blows your argument out of the water. Also, there never redefined natural born citizen in the later act - they simply changed the term to citizen. The only time “natural born citizen” has been defined in U.S. law it included the children of citizens born outside the United States. I repeat, case closed.
No act of Congress, whether today or 200 years ago, can change one word of the Constitution. That can only be done by the amendment process. Whatever “natural born” meant when the Constitution was ratified is simply and for all time what it freaking means. This is really not hard unless you’re hellbent on squaring the circle.
The two phrases mean exactly the same thing. Its just a more old English way of saying it.
Gee! Makes sense to me now that I see you are A2 S1 trasher. ( Article 2 Section 1)
Please find me the definition of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution.
“A2 S1 trasher?” Now I’ve heard everything! LOL
Your mistake is referring to an act of Congress for help in determining the definition of “natural born.” I’m sorry, can Congress amend the Constitution?
At least I think they mean the same thing. Maybe I shouldn’t be quite so dogmatic.
Please try and be a reasonable person.
I am going to jump out of this argument. I find it to be painful.
I agree with you. The ones who repealed the Nationality Act of 1790 so that the term natural born citizen was properly applied agree with you as well. They corrected their mistake and by doing so, told us what a natural born citizen was NOT.
It’s amazing to me. I watch people who could probably reason out this simple problem in 60 seconds but for the fact that they have a horse in the race. Did the Founder’s know what “natural born” meant when THEY WROTE IT DOWN IN THE CONSTITUTION? If they did all we need to do is determine WHAT IT MEANT TO THEM.... Got it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.