[Jim W N]

Don’t get sidetracked by the title of the bill. The point is the bill itself made a distinction between “naturalized” and “natural born” citizens.

The issue is the term “natural born citizen” (Art II, Sec 1, Cl 5) as it was originally understood and intended at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

The 1795 bill never used the term “natural born citizen”, so it is limited in its usefulness in the original understanding of the term. The 1795 bill addressed only alien naturalization and children born in the U.S. to a naturalized citizen. It did not address the specific issue of birth outside the U.S.

So although the 1795 Bill replaced the 1790 Bill, the 1790 bill is still useful in gaining insight into the original understanding of the term “natural born citizen.”

[jpsb]

Obviously you are another one of the many around here that believe our constitution is a living document and it means whatever you want it to mean. In 1790 Cruz would not have even been considered a citizen of the USA. Did that get thru? Not even a citizen! Now how you go from not even a citizen to a natural born citizen (NBC) as the founders considered NBC is quite the mental feat.

The son of a Cuban, born in Canada to an American mothers is not a natural born citizen if you go by original intent. Not even close.