You mean like this one....
And this one...
Or this one...
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This Act was repealed in 1795 and the term “natural born citizens†was changed to read “citizensâ€.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.
Makes me a birther. Guilty, and proudly so.
Words have meaning. The requirement that someone be a natural born citizen in order to serve as President still existed in 1795 so the category of natural born citizenship still existed at that time. Yet, a set of birth circumstances that once resulted in a natural born citizen was CHANGED to result into just a citizen. They did not do this for no good reason. They re-defined what the results would be and it was NOT natural born citizenship.
You mean like this one....
And this one...
Or this one...
Maybe this birther nonsense will backfire on the Trumpets, since Trump's mother was born in Scotland.
Dictionary Definition-
citizen - a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its GOVERNMENT and is entitled to its protection
Not sure how you got God involved in this. Nations are a man-made construct
Trump’s father was a natural born US citizen living in the US. Trump was born in the US. Where his mother is from is irrelevant.
> “Once again, even in this case, there appears to be a need for two citizen parents.”
No.
> “citizenship shall not descend to persons whose ***fathers*** have never been resident in the United States”
Before the 19th Amendment, women had no right to vote. Only citizens could vote. Women were considered to carry the status of their husbands and were under the authority of their husbands.
Regardless of a woman’s origins and birthright, she was categorized according to her husband’s status. Whether she was German, Mohican, French, Iroquois, or born of American colonists, her citizenship status mattered not to the birth of her children. It was the FATHER who determined the birthright.
If a woman was not born of a citizen father, she was in effect ‘naturalized’ by marriage to a citizen American as long as the marriage was considered legitimate.
Therefore, the only criterion of consequence was a child born to an American citizen father inside a marriage considered as legitimate.
The TWO CITIZEN PARENTS was never codified, it was assumed as the default circumstance in legitimate marriages. The ‘two citizen parents’ is thus an artificial construct to create an additional category to the only real and true categories of citizenship. The real categories of citizenship are two in number, natural and naturalized.
The reason that this is even an issue is because of the questionable loyalty and allegiance of Barack Obama. If there was no question in this, this issue of natural born would not exist.
.
He deliberately missed that point.
He is trying to manipulate the clear sense of the Congress
I am a Trump person. Cruz is a NBS. Trump only said that Cruz needed to get it clarified because it would be used by the Dems if he didn’t get it straightened out. I don’t think Cruz even fully understood Trump’s point. This whole thing is a nuanced bullshit argument. Let Loon Grayson be flatulent out of his orifices, but Cruz ought to proceed and tell Grayson to stick it where the sun don’t shine
By assigning a result to a set of circumstances in one instance, then changing that result to another one from the same set of circumstances, did they not tell us that the originally assigned result was not what the circumstances dictated?
Here Is what I meant to post....
And this...
.
The congress did not make the changes you imagine.
Thanks. I really appreciate your post - I wish we had a lot more Trump supporters like you on free republic.
That’s all those hardcore Trump lemmings have. They don’t fool anyone, well maybe themselves.
They didn't think so at the time. 
From the document which created this nation.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
ROTFL at that Cuba BC.
Really ? I think you have that wrong.
Rafael Cruz
Ted Cruz's father
Rafael Bienvenido Cruz is a Cuban-born American Christian preacher and public speaker. The father of US politician Ted Cruz, he is described by various media outlets including the Wall Street Journal ... Wikipedia
Born: March 22, 1939 (age 76), Matanzas, Cuba
Me too.
I said Trump’s father, not Cruz’s father.
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.