Here is where you are wrong.
NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization ActSYNOPSIS:
1) In 1969 Pinckney McElwee uncovered evidence in the House Committee notes from 1795 which indicate that the reason the reference to natural born citizen (NBC), included in the 1790 Naturalization Act, but entirely removed from the 1795 Naturalization Act, was that people would wrongly infer that that Act was actually intending that those born overseas outside the country were to become natural born citizens. Clearly Madison was not wanting to make natural born citizens of the children born overseas to American parents. On June 14, 1967, Representative John Dowdy introduced McElwee’s unpublished article, “Natural Born Citizen” (pg 10), on the House floor, to the U.S. House of Representatives. Until recently, the import of this evidence has been largely unrecognized.
Largely unrecognized until now when it is precisely relevant to this political season.
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
1795 Naturalization Act text change:
, 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 on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.
James Madison had written "shall be considered as natural born citizens" He did not say, shall be as natural born citizens. In the revised act that abolished the first he corrected his own text to make it less susceptible to misinterpretation.
You may want to bookmark this and add it to your list in some way or even make a new thread if it has not already been done.
“NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act””
Maybe this should go in breaking news...
not.
“In 1969 Pinckney McElwee uncovered evidence in the House Committee notes from 1795”
And where is this evidence? All I saw was writings dated 1969.
“1795 Naturalization Act text change”
Here is the full text of both:
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
A lot of differences. Not just a removal of the “natural born” provision.
What was the real reason for the change?
One reason was that Great Britain was asserting claims of sovereignty over the children of former British subjects. This ultimately led to the war of 1812. However, the 1795 act prevented the possibility of foreign subjects (such as those of Great Britain) from qualifying as president. While we could not change British law to prevent them from making such claims, we could prevent them from exercising control over our government by creating greater restrictions on the citizenship of those born abroad.
As for the weird figure of speech / misunderstanding theory proposed, it is simply nonsense. The same phrase is used in the same act to describe naturalized citizens as well. Are we supposed to be believe the intent was to specify those who were not really naturalized but merely “considered as” naturalized?
Come on now.