Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The founder's minds on Citizenship.
http://memory.loc.gov ^ | 7/5/2011 | DiogenesLamp

Posted on 07/05/2011 3:53:32 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp

I have always said that if you want to know about "original intent", you should read what the Founders said and wrote, not what a Judge tells you they meant. Some people may not be aware that there is more information (regarding the meaning and intent of legislation) to be had by reading the debates in Congress. I have recently been perusing the debates in Congress regarding the "Naturalization Act of 1790." This act specifically forbids the Child of an American woman and a Foreign father from being considered an American citizen, unless the Father comes to America to becomes a citizen.

As this act was passed just a year after the Constitution was ratified, and as some of the members of Congress were DELEGATES to the Constitutional Convention, (Such as Congressman James Madison) no better insight can be had regarding their attitude about citizenship than can be found by reading the Debates in congress on this naturalization act. I thought others might be interested in this as well, and so here are the links to the Index for the House and Senate Debates on the Naturalization act of 1790.

House index link:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=650

Senate index link:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=642

Just look under "Naturalization...". The entry will provide the page number in the same book to find the debates on this act. Here is the page where the process began.



TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Reference
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; citizen; eligibility; naturalborncitizen

1 posted on 07/05/2011 3:53:36 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Is that constitution thing again? /S


2 posted on 07/05/2011 4:01:21 PM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I believe this particular legislation came about because there were buyers in Europe of USA lands, particularly in NYS. Does the name Charles Williamson ring a bell.

This was more self serving than anything else. Can you say Robert Morris??

3 posted on 07/05/2011 4:07:11 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Please read the first sentences of Amendment 14.
“born here”


4 posted on 07/05/2011 4:37:43 PM PDT by cliff630
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

This act specifically forbids the Child of an American woman and a Foreign father from being considered an American citizen, unless the Father comes to America to becomes a citizen.

PRECISELY! And knowing that discussion and legislation had to be manufactured just so these individuals could even be considered "citizen" clearly indicates they were not, under any circumstance, considered "natural born citizen" at any point prior. Hence, those who research the history know that Obama is ineligible and comprehend how dreadfully the Court and the Congress have let us down.
5 posted on 07/05/2011 4:41:20 PM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cliff630

Don’t stop reading there!

“And subject to the jurisdiction thereof”!

Also, you misquoted. That’s not a direct quote: “born here”.

The full text of the first sentence of the 14th is:
“Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


6 posted on 07/05/2011 4:41:51 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
This act specifically forbids the Child of an American woman and a Foreign father from being considered an American citizen, unless the Father comes to America to becomes a citizen.

That's only for children born outside the US, isn't it?

7 posted on 07/05/2011 6:04:54 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
I believe this particular legislation came about because there were buyers in Europe of USA lands, particularly in NYS. Does the name Charles Williamson ring a bell.

This was more self serving than anything else. Can you say Robert Morris??

I think the debate in congress speaks for itself.

8 posted on 07/05/2011 6:58:40 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cliff630
Please read the first sentences of Amendment 14. “born here”

Please show in the body of the text of the 14th amendment where it repeals article II?

The writers of the 14th amendment were obliged to use the "born here" argument because they were granting citizenship to former slaves. They could not use the Jus Sangunis argument because the parents of the slaves were not themselves citizens. The only way they could politely describe the people to whom they were granting citizenship was to describe them as "born here" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the United States Government. They did not want to use the word "Slave."

The 14th amendment was based on the "civil rights act of 1866." (It was found to be inadequate because states simply ignored it.) Perhaps you should give it a read to clear up your misconception about the 14th's intended purpose?

Rest assured, that the Amendment to grant citizenship to freed slaves was not intended to change the meaning of Article II. (Or justify abortion.)

9 posted on 07/05/2011 7:04:57 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: so_real
PRECISELY! And knowing that discussion and legislation had to be manufactured just so these individuals could even be considered "citizen" clearly indicates they were not, under any circumstance, considered "natural born citizen" at any point prior. Hence, those who research the history know that Obama is ineligible and comprehend how dreadfully the Court and the Congress have let us down.

Yes, a very good point. They had to CREATE legislation to recognize such people as citizens. They obviously didn't regard them as such prior to this legislation, for if they did, there would be no need to create it.

10 posted on 07/05/2011 7:08:04 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
That's only for children born outside the US, isn't it?

Yes it is. Presumably, those born IN the United States already have American parents.

From my reading of the debates in congress, it appears that congress WANTED easy citizenship for anyone who desired to come here and stay. Their major concern was that they would get worthless people and criminals or con men (or merchants) who would not be an asset to the community. Read the Debates.

But your comment overlooks the larger point. Congress (Those men who were also Delegates to the Constitutional Convention) specifically forbade the Children of Foreign men who did not come to America and be a citizen, from being granted American Citizenship. Not only were they not "natural born citizens", they weren't citizens at all! They did not object of Foreign women as mothers, but they DID object to Foreign men as fathers.

11 posted on 07/05/2011 7:19:19 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

No. Those free born in the US have always been considered citizens, natural born.

Congress was discussing NATURALIZATION, not citizenship by birth. The latter was not under Congress’s purview.


12 posted on 07/05/2011 7:26:37 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; so_real
Congress (Those men who were also Delegates to the Constitutional Convention) specifically forbade the Children of Foreign men who did not come to America and be a citizen, from being granted American Citizenship.

...IF their children were born overseas. Why do you keep leaving that out? You've already got one poster extending that restriction to Obama, to whom--unless you're arguing that he wasn't born in the US--it just doesn't apply. Leaving out part of the sentence is misleading. Are you doing that on purpose?

13 posted on 07/05/2011 8:10:59 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Its unnatural to serve two “masters”


14 posted on 07/05/2011 9:22:42 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Its unnatural to serve two “masters”


15 posted on 07/05/2011 9:22:56 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

...Simultaneously of course.


16 posted on 07/05/2011 9:42:32 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

sfl


17 posted on 07/05/2011 9:43:20 PM PDT by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; DiogenesLamp

I am looking at the bigger picture. What is being discussed is what makes a "citizen", and what laws define a "citizen", and how this discussion of "citizenship" provides insight into the "original intent" regarding the concept. My point is that if discussion and legislation had to take place just so these individuals could even be considered "citizens", there is no way they could in any conceivable way, have been considered "natural born citizens" prior to the discussion and legislation.


18 posted on 07/06/2011 4:33:53 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
No. Those free born in the US have always been considered citizens, natural born.

Oh, Absolutely! Here are some of those "citizens" you are referring to:


19 posted on 07/06/2011 6:47:27 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
...IF their children were born overseas. Why do you keep leaving that out?

Because it isn't germane to the point. Let me once again repeat, an ACT of congress cannot override an ARTICLE of the constitution. The "Naturalization Act of 1790" cannot change eligibility requirements. It can only show the minds of congress. The MIND of CONGRESS was to PROHIBIT citizenship for the children of a foreign father! The reason I don't keep mentioning that the ACT applies to children born overseas, is because it is irrelevant to the point.

If the Children were born IN the United States to a foreign father intent upon settling here, then congress wanted them to be regarded as citizens, because their father was intent on becoming a citizen. Congress DID NOT WANT to hand the birthright of American Citizenship to the children of people who weren't going to be part of the nation.

You've already got one poster extending that restriction to Obama, to whom--unless you're arguing that he wasn't born in the US--it just doesn't apply. Leaving out part of the sentence is misleading. Are you doing that on purpose?

You must have missed it the first hundred times i've said it, but an ACT of CONGRESS cannot trump an ARTICLE of the Constitution. The act doesn't affect eligibility anyways. It simply shows how congress regarded citizenship to foreign fathers. It is germane only insofar as it begs the question as to how a group who's possible citizenship congress directed a specific prohibition against, could possibly be a "natural born citizen"?

In other words, How could a group which Congress has specifically named as non-Citizens, be equal to our highest level of Citizen? (With the minor difference being allegedly born on US soil?)

To go from Completely prohibited as a Citizen to "Natural born citizen" in 1.6 seconds is absolutely ridiculous, especially based on the Allegiance neutral "born on the soil" argument.

Congress rejected that specific group for even basic citizenship, and had they considered that a foreign father might drop a bastard and leave, they might not have sent his child after him, but they Certainly wouldn't have considered the child to be the highest level of citizen.

20 posted on 07/06/2011 7:12:17 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Thanks for sharing this. It makes it much clearer that an NBC is born of two US citizens.

Like a natural pair when playing cards, you just can't have a wild card and still be a natural. You would still have a pair, but not a natural pair. You can be born a citizen and still not be a Natural-born-citizen. You would have the wild-card of a second citizenship, and disqualifies for the presidency.

From birth to age of 21, Obama was a legal Kenyan Citizen.
This statement is fact, not opinion.

21 posted on 07/06/2011 9:35:20 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
"Like a natural pair when playing cards, you just can't have a wild card and still be a natural. You would still have a pair, but not a natural pair. You can be born a citizen and still not be a Natural-born-citizen. "

That's an excellent analogy! Bravo! Don't be surprised if you see that being repeated elsewhere ;)

"From birth to age of 21, Obama was a legal Kenyan Citizen."

Additionally...Barry was also a British citizen at birth until at least age of 2 (when Kenya became independent) and possibly even Indonesian if he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro.

Not only was/is Barry a dual citizen...the guy is a multi-national having up to 4 different citizenship's/nationalities.

It's impossible the framers would have considered a multi-national to be a "natural born Citizen."

22 posted on 07/06/2011 11:23:32 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: so_real
I am looking at the bigger picture. What is being discussed is what makes a "citizen", and what laws define a "citizen", and how this discussion of "citizenship" provides insight into the "original intent" regarding the concept. My point is that if discussion and legislation had to take place just so these individuals could even be considered "citizens", there is no way they could in any conceivable way, have been considered "natural born citizens" prior to the discussion and legislation.

Absolutely! If the founders wouldn't even allow citizenship for the children of a foreigner, why would they regard the child of a foreigner to be a "Natural born citizen" just because they were born on the soil?

It makes no sense to believe that they would.

23 posted on 07/07/2011 12:56:30 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson