Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 states that those Children born to American citizens( even outside of our borders) are Natural born . The founding fathers felt that loyalty to our nation was derived from the parents. The founding fathers DID NOT recogize JUS SOLI( BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL) as grounds for citizenship. Anchor babies have no right to citizenship as their parents have no allegiance to the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 states that those Children born to American citizens( even outside of our borders) are Natural born . The founding fathers felt that loyalty to our nation was derived from the parents. The founding fathers DID NOT recogize JUS SOLI( BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL) as grounds for citizenship. Anchor babies have no right to citizenship as their parents have no allegiance to the U.S.
George W.Bush appointed a second generation anchor baby: Alberto Gonzales to be the US chief law enforcement officer as Attorney General of the United States and he appointed a Muslim anchor baby from Afghanistan, Dr. Zalmay Khalilziad to be United States ambassador to the United Nations.
“To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.” —Supreme Court of the United States, “US v Wong Kim Ark” (1898)
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”—1789, Congressman James Madison, Founding Father, Primary author of the US Constitution and soon to become the 4th President of the United States.
That is wrong. The act only addressed those born outside the borders.
omegadawn said, “Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 states that those Children born to American citizens( even outside of our borders) are Natural born.”
Does it? If so, then how can one explain that decades later, scholars of the late 19th century wrote otherwise? NO LAW can change the Constitution.
omegadawn said, “The founding fathers felt that loyalty to our nation was derived from the parents. The founding fathers DID NOT recogize JUS SOLI( BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL) as grounds for citizenship. Anchor babies have no right to citizenship as their parents have no allegiance to the U.S.”
Therefore, Obama, being an admitted British subject at birth, was born into the allegiance of another country and is ineligible for the presidency.
Both of your quotes say parents. Plural. Both parents not U.S. citizens, therefore: ineligible. Born on U.S. soil? Fact not in evidence.
This is an excerpt from one article cited at WTPOTUS blog:
In the Act of March 26, 1790, it was provided that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens;“ but this was coupled with the provision that “the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States,” showing that the phrase “considered as natural born citizens” meant merely” to be treated as such because of this law.”
Great exception was taken to the language as misleading, and on January 25, 1795, this was repealed in express terms and a new act adopted, which read, “Shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” thus making the proviso forbidding the privilege to the children of citizens who had not resided here consistent with it. For if a child of an American citizen born abroad is without any legislation a natural born citizen, then no provision of statute could deprive him of that birth-right as long as he is innocent of crime.”
Enough has been brought forward to safely guide the reflective reader. We may regret that Mr. Evarts did not suggest some points or references but he has, doubtless, been over the ground to his own satisfaction. The Herald assumes to be oracular without affording any grounds for the faith. Do adhere to our former answers to the question. — that the child of an American citizen, born abroad, without regard to the station of his father, is not eligible to the Presidency of the United States, because he is not “a natural born citizen, but merely a citizen made so by the law. We close by stating that Paschal, and all other high authorities, are clear that only a citizen born in the allegiance of the United States, i.e., either on its soil, or on the high seas under its flag, is a natural born citizen.”
************************
So the 1790 law was modified in 1795 to state that these children were common citizens NOT natural born citizens.
In the spirit of truthful and respectful debate, it would behoove everyone not to cite laws or rulings that have been fundamentally modified or overturned, without also citing the rest of the story.