Posted on 09/02/2013 9:58:26 AM PDT by xzins
Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
From various members of the 1st Congress debating the 1790 Naturalization Act. (Note Jackson's use of Blackstone, and the other's use of British law.):
Mr. Jackson.--It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not modify or confine our terms of naturalization; that we could not admit an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by the reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone, I, 10.--"Naturalization," says he, "cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King's legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it." So that here we find, in that nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely necessary to be pursued in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners. Representative James Jackson, Georgia, Officer during Revolution in State Militia, delegate to provincial Congress and to State Convention.
Mr. Burke....The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.Aedanus Burke, South Carolina, who had been an officer in the Continental Army.
Mr. Hartley observed, that the subject was entirely new, and that the committee had no positive mode to enable them to decide; the practice of England, and the regulations of the several States, threw some light on the subject, but not sufficient to enable them to discover what plan of naturalization would be acceptable under a Government like this. Some gentlemen had objected to the bill, without attending to all its parts, for a remedy was therein provided for some of the inconveniences that have been suggested. It was said, the bill ought to extend to the exclusion of those who had trespassed against the laws of foreign nations, or been convicted of a capital offence in any foreign kingdom; the last clause contains a proviso to that effect, and he had another clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens, born out of the United States.Rep Thomas Hartley, Pennsylvania, Continental Army Officer, Delegate to Provincial Congress, Delegate to Ratification Convention
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 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: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
He’s also a natural born leader!
What is your position on Rubio and Jindal? I am not saying that you, or any one else, would support them if one of them were to run, but clearly if you apply the history of case law and the constitution that both would eligible as well.
OMG...I’m almost out of popcorn!!
Cruz is.
ODumbo is.
End of story.
Yes, the other thread at 700+ posts had become unwieldy.
were both of his parents citizens of the united states when he was born? Yes or no
Obama set the precedence that it doesn’t matter.
we have actually had other presidents that were not natural born.
Natural Born Citizen is no longer a Constitutional issue. Precedent has made it irrelevant.
Hypocrisy is what will plague a Cruz run for President. Many “birthers” painted conservatives into a box on the issue. Cruz will constantly be hounded to denounce those conservatives. It could become a distraction, an opportunity at ridicule. The mistake was in how the birthers mishandled the situation. Next time ask questions, create doubt. But don’t make accusations.
Jindal is an anchor baby, born while his parents were here as students having every intention of returning to India (I believe) their native country. Jindal would have been a natural born citizen of India by our interpretation of law.
This would arguably preclude an anchor baby from being an NBC.
Rubio would be another anchor baby, but whose parents were Cuban refugees, with his mother early on pursuing citizenship in the US, and his father permanent resident status. I don’t recall if his mother had her citizenship before or after his birth. It would make a difference. That would make Rubio the child of two denizens or 1 citizen and 1 denizen, depending on the date of her citizenship.
read the quotes in the article
Unwieldy would be one word that could describe it. There are others....
Movie Theater Butter
Cue the 1500 word spam pasted-posts.
Didn’t there used to be a rule against copy/pasted spam; called it disruption??? Something like that.
This assertion is borne of a misunderstanding of American citizenship law.
It is this: American citizenship law does not now, and has never, recognized another country's citizenship law.
If a person is a U.S. citizen at birth, he is a U.S. citizen. Period. That he might also be a candidate for, say, Indian citizenship is of no moment.
At some future point, under the laws of India, he may opt for Indian citizenship. But, at that point, he loses his U.S. citizenship.
If you are a U.S. citizen at birth, you are a U.S. citizen -- regardless of how many other nationalities and citizenships you might be eligible for.
A lesser tolerance for it, surely.
I’ll admit.. when I see 18 inches of legalese text from past eras..
I be a’scrollin’ right past it. Willfully ignorant of such postings.
I said “arguably”. Didn’t say I’d win the argument. :>)
the naturalization act of 1790 was repealed
The case with Jindal parents returning to India is irrelevant according to the Elg (307 US 325) Supreme court case.
Do you remember the guy who used to post miles of colorful text, background, pictures, blaring headlines?
Scroll wheel would get a major workout just to make it through that stuff to the next post.
I've actually read them until I realized that they are the same old rehash.
One of the birthers just got the zot. I don't think there's going to be a lot of tolerance for that crap this time around.
/johnny
/johnny
Read the Blackstone quote and origins of the law quotes.
Blackstone was followed throughout, and British law was followed throughout. They were used in 1790, 1795, 1802, etc.
So, the DEFINITION AND USE of “natural born” did not change from the way the British had used it.
A fine source for truth and eternal principle as ever has been. They MUST be believed.
Jones said it, they believe it, that settles it.
-PJ
ROFLMAO
come on. it’s not that complicated, is it?
you’re a natural born citizen if there are no alternatives.
cruz was born with the ability to be a US and/or canadian citizen (maybe even british). similar to 0bama, who if born in HI would have been a US citizen and a british citizen.
why was the clause written in by the founders? they stated why... it’s no secret.
their intention was to insure the president would not have split allegiances, at least by birth
it’s an extremely simplistic requirement... and the only single point of failure in the Constitution (IOW, if not obeyed, the Constitution would be in breech... which it is now)
Anchor babies....now that is a situation about which I’d make a law. When neither parent is already a US citizen, I would support a law that required a declaration of intention to pursue citizenship and a renunciation of other citizenships before I’d allow the child to be a citizen. And, I’d require it to be naturalized along with the parents.
Just my personal preference. And it relates to Cruz, because applied to Cruz in Canada, he never would have had their citizenship.
no use trying to reason with you, you have obviously not followed the last 5 years discussions. We are not subjects like the brits were and it is a big difference when it comes to nationality. If we followed
British law we would still be “subjects”. Congress cannot pass a law to change the Constitution, it must be changed by a Constitutional Amendment. try doing a little more research.
regards
show me the Constitutional amendment and then maybe i'll go along with your drivel
i realize reading is hard for you pro-0bama/ anti-birther types
what is the status of anchor babies? has it been decided by the supreme court? are they really citizens at birth ?
Read the Blackstone quote above
anchor babies would be native citizens by the ‘dry foot’ classification. this is not the same as a natural born.
keep in mind, the term ‘natural born’ is only used as a requirement for one position in the country.
Inferences will not prevail in the face of the determination to stop Cruz by the liberal elite and their house organs of the Leviathan state. Nor will the fact that the fraud in the Oval Office and "Chet" Arthur were not natural born citizens under the definitions used at the time in the area of citizenship. Both Marshall and Story opined from the bench in reported cases that the law of nations was what was looked to on the issue of citizenship. There is extrinsic evidence that supports the latter view from the time, such as the well known letter to Washington from Jay and no extrinsic evidence that the common law of England was behind the phrase. Likelihoods and surmises won't cut it. The word "citizen" was associated with the rise of republicanism as against monarchism and was not believed to be equivalent to "subject" but was considered quite different, since citizens were held to be sovereign in the ideology of republicanism. The early statute to which you refer was repealed and the repeal was accompanied by a recogition that it likely violated the Constitution and so needed to be repealed.
The hypocrisy involved will not stop the attacks on Cruz. The worshippers of the State don't give a hoot about hypocrisy. Nor did the ducking and giving of a free pass to the fraud in the Oval Office because he was half-black create "precedent." Avoidance does not establish a precedent. The closest precedent is Minor v. Happersett Waite carried weight as a jurist. The 14th Amendment cases such as WKA don't really apply and it clear from comments by the principal sponsor of the 14th Amendment in Congress that it was not intended to displace the law of nations derived definition. You fool yourself if you think that statist jurists will give Cruz the same free pass that they gave the great pretender in the Oval Office. The great pretender's foreign policy and warmaking are peeling away the sympathy for anything and everything he says and does that has ruled until now. The fear of Cruz' fearless constitutionalism ironically, will outweigh the backward-looking desire to protect the fraud at any cost as far as the members of the governing liberal elite are concerned. In their minds ideological status overrules the rule of law properly understood.
I think they anchor babies are born citizens, and I do think there was a court case affirming that, but I’m not sure it was SCOTUS.
you did not answer the question - dry foot is an administrative not legal term
I think they anchor babies are born citizens, and I do think there was a court case affirming that, but I’m not sure it was SCOTUS.
then I suggest you do some research before representing it as real law
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/02/21/closing-anchor-baby-loophole-restores-the-14th-amendment/
That's obvious nonsense, since it would make a person's NBC status dependent on some other country's laws. Suppose Switzerland passed a law saying that all children of 100% Swiss ancestry born anywhere in the world are entitled to Swiss citizenship. Then you're saying that a child born in Ohio of American citizen parents of Swiss heritage is ineligible to be President? Ridiculous!
i was born in the US to an American father and a Scottish mother.
at birth, i was a US citizen and British by descent.
this makes me a native citizen, but not a natural born citizen...
just like 0bama (assuming he was born in HI).
to this day, i can still pick up my British passport if i wanted
I get it. You’re saying the Constitution is irrelevant. You and Obama agree.
being born on the soil, as per American law, allows the baby native born citizenship. of course, since the baby’s parents are both citizens of mexico (for example), the baby would also be able to claim mexican citizenship
therefore, the baby can be a citizen of TWO countries
this would make the kid a native born American... but not natural born
a natural born citizen is one that is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES
Madison commented in his presidency that children born to citizens (citizen father automatically bestowed citizenship to the mother via marriage in that era) at sea or temporarily abroad were to be considered ‘natural born’.
The idea is that American citizens maintain a ‘domicile’ on US or US controlled/possessed soil and are able to maintain a ‘residence’ abroad. For purposes of immigration, ‘domicile’ and ‘residence’ are legally distinct terms.
It is clear the fact that Cruz was born in Canada does not render him ineligible to be president because his mother was there for work, not for immigration to Canada. In other words, her domicile was in the USA while her residence was temporarily in Canada.
Where Ted Cruz gets hung in this is that it was not his father who was an American citizen at the time of his birth nor was his father automatically bestowed with citizenship via marriage to his citizen mother.
What is needed is a law with retroactive and prospective provisions that clearly address the distinction of ‘natural born’ versus ‘citizen by birth’.
It was John Jay’s letter to General George Washington that requested a higher bar for the presidency when the Constitution was being drafted and resulted in ‘natural born’ meaning ‘second generation’ as a requirement for the presidency.
John Jay was clearly concerned that a President as Commander-in-Chief must be loyal and have allegiance to the United States because a person with divided loyalties and muddled allegiance would have command of the Army and hence would be in a position to become a tyrant.
I am persuaded that Barack Obama has divided loyalties and muddled allegiance to the United States.
But with Cruz, it is clear he is American through and through in spirit, loyalty and allegiance.
actually, that's British law. it's called 'British by descent'... which is why i'm able to pick up my UK passport if so desired
in order to insure their child is a natural born citizen, both parents would have to renounce any non-US citizenship and become US citizens before the child's birth.
otherwise the child would be a native born US citizen ... AND ... a Swiss citizen (using your example, tho i'm pretty sure the swiss don't see it that way)
The very phrasing used screams Blackstone and British law. And the comments of representatives in the first congress clearly indicate British law and Blackstone.
It’s a slam dunk.
Link to source that documents accompanying recognition please.
During Suffrage the passage of citizenship to ones child included women.
I think my response was in clear English.
“If you are a U.S. citizen at birth, you are a U.S. citizen — regardless of how many other nationalities and citizenships you might be eligible for.”
You are correct about being a “U.S. citizen at birth” BUT, being a U.S. citizen at birth does not mean that you are Article II eligible to the presidency. For that, you have to ALSO meet the requirements of “natural born Citizen”. Born in the country by two citizen parents.
I CAN’T BELIEVE that anyone can believe that someone BORN in a foreign country, is eligible to be president. This just shows the IGNORANCE of some otherwise intelligent people. The Constitution is clear (having removed “citizen” and replaced it with “natural born Citizen”). The framers were CLEAR about the presidency “devolving to a foreigner”.
Get REAL, Cruz is NOT eligible, there is no doubt on this.
Someone I know told me that Ireland claims or allows Irish citizenship for the children and grandchildren of their citizens who deny previous citizenship and accept U.S. citizenship. Question, when naturalized you do have to deny or something to that effect your former citizenship, don’t you? Anyway because this friends parents are naturalized U.S. citizens from Ireland, both her and her siblings along with all of their children are either considered Irish citizens or eligible for a “dual” Irish citizenship. Question, Do dual citizens pay taxes to both of the nations they pay allegiance to?
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.