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.
Is that constitution thing again? /S
This was more self serving than anything else. Can you say Robert Morris??
Please read the first sentences of Amendment 14.
“born here”
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.”
That's only for children born outside the US, isn't it?
This was more self serving than anything else. Can you say Robert Morris??
I think the debate in congress speaks for itself.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
...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?
Its unnatural to serve two “masters”
Its unnatural to serve two “masters”
...Simultaneously of course.
sfl
Oh, Absolutely! Here are some of those "citizens" you are referring to:
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.
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.