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This Act was repealed in 1795 and the term “natural born citizens†was changed to read “citizensâ€.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.
I am selfish. I want Cruz to be Trumps VP. But my points stand as stated.
You say there are only two categories, natural and naturalized. The Constitution requires a natural born citizenship. Isn’t this a third? If not, why not and if not, why hasn’t the requirement been changed?
Even so, Mary Ann Trump was Naturalized four years before Trump was born. My wife was naturalized four months before my son was born. To the extreme you have to trace everyone to before the constitution or that the are Native American to be Eligible. My mother’s side would qualify, but by grandfather came from Germany at age 14. And my grandmothers folks came from Germany as teenagers as well.
Trump supporters desperation to find anything on Ted Cruz to bring him down.
Its no accident inspite of their denials that since Ted Cruz is on the rise in polls and looks like he is going to win in Iowa that they have been attacking Ted Cruz.
Wasnt Trump suppose to be inevdible ? A sure win ?
Why are they panicking ?
Yes..thanks. In earlier threads today, it was mentioned that he sealed some of his records, apparently not these. As a Constitutional scholar, he insists that he is NBC when he was born in Canada to a one citizen parent..I watched an interview today that was given on his campaign bus. He reiterated that he was a “citizen”, and therefore qualified...a “non-issue” he called it. In my humble opinion, if it was a “non-issue”, we would not be having these discussions...and if he was a leader, he would demand a legal opinion from SCOTUS..posthaste.
Senate Majority Leader.
I am a Trump supporter, and I am not panicked. Trump only cautioned about folks like Loon Grayson. Lets get this over with.
I don’t think we have to trace back too far. While I like Cruz, I’m looking down the road. The founders specifically did not want foreigners having influence on the presidency. If we continue down this path, what is stopping a foreigner from having a child with an US citizen just to manipulate the presidency. I know Cruz wouldn’t do this, but Obama and Cruz would be setting a precedence that would destroy what is left of this country regardless of what we do.
Please tell me what that clear sense was because all I see is that they changed the results from a set of circumstances that would appear to match. This change involved the use of the term natural born citizen, then changed it to citizen 5 years later. Why did this happen? Are we to use both terms for the same set of circumstances? Why didn't they list both in the 1795 version if this is the case?
It seems that there are some that think we should stoop to what the Dems/Obama did instead of following the rule of law.
.
>> “Why did this happen?” <<
Because the term “natural born” injected a vagueness that might be manipulated in the manner that you employ.
They wanted the terms to be “Citizen,” and “Naturalized Citizen” to eliminate the confusion.
Cruz is a citizen, but not a naturalized citizen.
Capiche?
Born June 14, 1946 in Queens, New York, NY (Jus Soli)
Parents were
Frederick Christ Trump, born October 11, 1905 in Queens, NY, died June 1999 in Queens, NY
Mary Ann MacLeod, born May 10, 1912 in SCOTLAND, died August 7, 2000 in Queens, NY. Arrived in US October 5, 1935. Naturalized as a US Citizen March 10, 1942.
Both parents were US Citizens at the time of his birth (Jus Sanguinis)
Donald Trump was born in the US to two US Citizen parents so is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Now that I corrected that, I can add to your statement by saying that your comment "Where his mother is from is irrelevant." may be a key to the whole CRUZ NBC issue.
Everyone is saying because his mother was a US citizen that Ted was too.
The information I found says that it is the father's nationality that counts, not the mothers.
Whether that is going to be proven true, is hard to say. There is so much controversy, and there's a lot more BS floating around than FACT.
Here is that info:
"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.
I think one of the Naturalization Laws of the early 20th Century changed it so that citizenship could be passed through the mother. That still doesn’t negate the fact that he wasn’t born within the jurisdication of the US (Canada) and became a US citizen by statute not by the Constitution.
Despite all the bickering, I hope we get this settled(Cruz gets this settled) and it then becomes a non-issue.
I think Ted is a full blown AMERICAN and so is TRUMP. Many posters seem to think that anyone who questions TED’s NBC status is a devious CRUZ HATER. They don’t get it that people here , even if they support TRUMP, want CRUZ to settle this so he and TRUMP can duel it out. I’d hate for us to just stick our heads in the sand and ignore the CRUZ ISSUE only to have the DEMS pull it right before the election, not giving CRUZ time to correctly inform the populace.
I also find it hypocritical that those convinced that it’s a NON ISSUE for CRUZ, so emotionally and angrily ARGUE that very ISSUE. Just like you said.
(bookmarking for reference)
The rule of law at that time was “Partus Sequitur Patrem”.
Why then, wasn't the term natural born citizen removed from the eligibility requirements in the Constitution? If they wanted to eliminate confusion wouldn't this have been necessary? Isn't it more sensible to assume that they were correcting an error as it pertains to the description given, especially in light of the fact that the entire reason for the natural born requirement was to eliminate the possibility of someone having dual allegiance become President?
Citizen at the time of birth (Natural Born) and Naturalized Citizen.
Which one is Cruz?
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.