Posted on 01/14/2016 11:29:42 AM PST by GIdget2004
So if that is true then wouldn't somebody who had to resort to such a law enacted by Congress be, of necessity, a naturalized citizen?
Simple questions. Simple answers are all that are required.
Yes. Only a uniform rule of naturalization.
I have answered this already. Congress does not get to define what “citizen” means, nor “natural born”, nor “naturalization”. Those are words with their own meaning. Congress is empowered to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. This is, apparently in the mind of the founders, a broader purview than merely deciding how a person is naturalized. They apparently believed it included recognizing who was already a citizen and did not need to be naturalized.
If a uniform rule of naturalization does not allow Congress to set limits on who is a citizen at birth, and if citizen at birth is what a natural born citizen is, then Congress must have enacted an unconstitutional law just 18 months after ratifying the Constitution. I do not buy it.
The simple explanation which I have already repeated many times is that natural born citizen means citizen at birth and is conferred on children by the nature of the parents’ citizenship. Parentage is more important than place of birth, although place of birth can potentially be the basis of determining who is natural born and who must be naturalized. The Constitution only recognizes these two kinds of citizens.
If a person is born in the US to parents who are both citizens of the United States and no other nation, there is no question whether that person is a natural born citizen. If a person is born outside of the US to parents who are not citizens of the US, then the person is certainly not a natural born citizen. What if both parents are citizens but the birth occurs outside of the borders? What if the parents have dual citizenship? What if only one parent is a citizen? All of these issues can and are resolved by a uniform rule of naturalization.
Some around here want to make natural born citizen to be some mystic, cryptic legalese which only many years of study can shed light on. So they introduce this idea that there is a naturalized at birth citizen in order to accommodate their made up definition of natural born citizen. Yet they have no example of anyone being born a citizen and being described as naturalized. That is because naturalization is for someone who is not already a citizen.
If a person is a citizen of the US at birth, if that person is a citizen by virtue of his or her parents’ citizenship at birth, if that person is a citizen by virtue of where they are born without regard to their parents’ citizenship, if that person’s citizenship is according to the law, then they are natural born citizens.
But let’s make it very simple like you ask. Do you believe that Congress has the right, under the authority to make a uniform rule of naturalization, the authority to determine who is a citizen at birth? Obviously we both agree they DO have this authority. Then the only question is whether being a citizen at birth means the same thing as natural born citizen. Either a person born as a citizen is natural born or is a citizen naturalized at birth. I believe these are the only two possibilities.
I have presented evidence that Congress passing a law specifying certain conditions under which children born outside of the US are natural born citizens, then that MUST be the same thing as citizen at birth. Otherwise what they did was unconstitutional.
No one has presented any evidence, especially from any laws, amendments, published writings, or even personal letters from the general time frame of the ratification of the Constitution, which supports the notion that children becoming citizens at birth are ever called “naturalized”. Can you find any?
You are right, of course. But the feds recovered their power over the process after the Civil War. Until then Americans had dual citizenship, one in their state and one in the Union. The federal court system was far less extensive and accessible than those of the states. Most state courts regarded federal immigration laws somewhat like those of California do today’s immigration laws, more like guidelines than laws.
Well said. The Constitution itself does not define the term. I don’t want to overstate but I think it a term of art rather than a term of science. Useful in denying the “throne†to any foreign prince and enhancing the stature of the man who everyone at the Convention wanted to fill the office. Am I going to far when I recall it being said that not a word of Article II was written without a glance at the Man sitting in the President’s chair? Anyway, I believe that.
“You are right, of course. But the feds recovered their power over the process after the Civil War. Until then Americans had dual citizenship, one in their state and one in the Union.”
That is inaccurate. From 4 July 1776 a person’s U.S. citizenship was acquired by becoming a citizen of a U.S. State or a U.S. incorporated territory. The same is still true today. What changed was who determined the rules of naturalization, the States and later the U.S. Government. You still have to become a citizen of a State or a Territory to acquire U.S. citizenship.
The moral concept of state citizenship used to be very real. The notion of the state as an autonomous political community within the Union. That has been replaced by the idea of residency, which has been stripped of any moral meaning.
No it's not....children born of foreign service workers, ambassadors, their staff, military personnel, etc are indeed citizens. I have a nephew born in Oberamergau, Germany and he is natural born, not nationalized.
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.