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.
You say ‘citizens’. Question. Are they ‘natural born’ citizens? Further, Are such babies under the ‘jurisdiction’ of the USA when returned to mother’s country?
yes. the child is a US citizen and would, in theory, be liable for taxes on all income earned anywhere in the world... above $70k (or so)
of course, they would have to know where the kid is, that he's a US citizen, and how much he made.
they usually skip it as most people make less then $70k
I’m sure Jim Robinson will quickly look up my records. Fact is I lurked in 1997 and registered a few months before you around the blue dress time. sheesh what a joke.
I have stuck my neck out for the conservative cause and many here know it, however I choose not to publicize it here. In case you haven’t realized it yet our government has been taken over by a shadow government and laws are being broken ignored unenforced and enforced against opponents.
What ever you think or me or anyone else thinks, the law is what the Supreme Court decides it is at a certain point in time and it can change precedents any time it wants. Tell me Obamacare is not unconstitutional? the USSC says it is but that doesn’t mean it is only that the current supreme authority says so.
1790 is instructive as to their definition of "natural born citizen." And, it is evident that the 1795 law was repealed due to amplification, and the 1802, and all of them up until the current one.
So, since you're interested only in the law that became current. Current law says that Cruz is eligible for the presidency, since he was a citizen at birth.
So, read the above sources of US law used by the Founders and the first Congress. Read the comments of the representatives.
You will come to understand that they used British law in constructing US law. It makes sense. It was the law they had and knew.
Instead of doing a poor job of back-peddling, you might consider offering xzins an apology.
We obviously agree on so much, RS. It’s a shame that Cruz’s natural born citizen status and eligibility for the presidency is so hard for some freepers to see in printed law.
Sounds to me like you have left the field for some reason....caught, perhaps, in a misrepresentation.
what representation?
wrong.
citizenship at birth == native born citizen
if a person is a natural born citizen to the country or countries they have citizenship with upon birth... then i am a natural born citizen of the US and the UK
just like 0bama
and Ted Cruz
So you are saying that since Cruz’s father was a US citizen at the time of his birth in Canada, Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen. (based on the underlined section from Black’s)
Seems plausible, but may need a bit of fact checking.
What if Cruz was born in Canada to a British father? Would that make him British?
What if Cruz was born in Canada to a Canadian father, would he then be Canadian Natural born or Cuban Natural Born?
None of that changes the fact of the founders ORIGINAL thinking on the issue. The Framers of the Constitution established a process to alter or eliminate their original thinking on any and all issues: constitutional amendment and legislative/judicial action.
Any and all constitutional provisions as originally constituted can be changed.
If you ask our legal system, they consider anchor babies full US citizens by birth. I consider them foreign citizens of their parents’ sovereign.
Which is why I consider Ted Cruz a US citizen. The sovereign of his mother was the USA, and using old terms, his father was at a minimum, a denizen of the USA, and had been, at the time of Cruz’s birth, for 13 years after exiting Cuba, and proving the same by eventually becoming a US citizen.
In frontier days, Cruz Sr would have been considered a citizen, since he had early on in America filed for permanent legal residence according to his son. All that was required in frontier days was residency and oath, both of which Cruz fulfilled in his application for permanent residency.
“So, the DEFINITION AND USE of “natural born” did not change from the way the British had used it.”
Silly rabbit, this is the United States of America. We are governed by United States law. We had just rejected British rule and wrote our own constitution. Making the phrase natural born Citizen, meaning, born in the country by two citizen parents, the Supreme law of the land. The framers and founders understood this to be the meaning of natural born Citizen. Blackstone was not a framer or founder or an American. While he was a famous figure and we were FORMER British subjects, we were forming a NEW nation with its own laws with differences.
It doesn’t matter what Blackstone said, it only matters what the founders & framers said. What was the framers “original intent” with substituting “natural born Citizen” for “Citizen” in the constitution? It was because they wanted a stronger check on the president/command in chief, from foreign influences. The founders & framers referred to Vattel many times in their discussions. It is most likely that definition of natural born Citizen was most likely used. Born in the country, by two citizen parents. A much stronger check than just being a native citizen.
… the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace) and jus sanguinis (right of blood). From the office of Citizenship and Immigration Services
http://birthers.org/misc/logic.htm
A natural born Citizen meets BOTH these requirements, TWICE the strong check of citizen only meeting one of them. This is the strong check that the founders & framers wanted, insisted on, and put in the constitution.
lawyer
There is no category in U.S. citizenship law called “Native Born Citizen.”
There are only two citizenship categories: citizen of the United States at Birth and Naturalized United States Citizen. Citizens of the United Sttes at Birth can become president or vice-president and naturalized citizens cannot.
I only say that anchor babies (babies born in USA to 1 foreign parent or 2 foreign parents can be US citizen but NOT nbc, therefore not eligible to be POTUS.
Therefore obumbo, even if proven to be born in USA, but to 1 foreign father, is a USA citizen but NOT nbc and ineligible to be POTUS.
Only one born on US soil to 2 USA citizen parentS is nbc, all else is NOT nbc
nbc has no other alternatives! because he/she is a USA citizen by birth place and by parentage - no other country has jurisdiction over him/her.
All nbc are US citizens
but not all US citizens are nbc.
Anchor babies could be US citizen by birth place but could be under juridiction of his/her parent(s)’ countries therefore not a nbc and NOT eligible to be POTUS
If your mother had been vacationing without your father in Germany and had gone into premature labor and delivered you, in your mind what would be your home?
Certainly. The arguments made from statements in Congress that were made during the passage of the four Alien and Sedition Acts...
No. We were talking about the Naturalization Acts of '90 and '95. You said "the early statute(1790) to which you(me) refer was repealed and the repeal was accompanied by a recogition that it likely violated the Constitution and so needed to be repealed.
Please document the "recognition" that you referred to.
Given that Obama also graduated from Harvard Law School, I question what Harvard is actually teaching students about the Constitution.
After all, Obama could at least be encouraging Congress to petition the states for new amendments to the Constitution, as required by Article V, which would grant Congress and the Oval Office the specific powers to make all the changes to the country that Obama is now trying to implement outside the framework of the Constitution.
So hopefully Cruz at least stayed awake in class when his Harvard professor discussed Article V.
Tricks are for kids, faucetman.
Blackstone and British law is QUOTED in the congressional record posted in the article. It was PART OF the dabate.
The wording is the same as that of English law.
Our law is based on British law, Blackstone, etc. It makes sense. It’s the law the Founders had and the law they knew and had practiced. Just because the king was a jerk doesn’t mean everything they did was awful and rejected.
I’d say Cruz has forgotten more constitutional law than you and I ever knew.
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.