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.
Similarly there is a single mention of Blackstone in the context of how in British common law a person born overseas to British parents was thereby a subject of the British Monarch. This was a remark by a single delegate in the context of the debate over how foreign immigrants could come to be sufficiently loyal to this republic. In short there is nothing in this passage which reflects in any way upon the question of the eligibility of Ted Cruz to "be" President under the constitutional clause in question. Certainly there is nothing that "screams" of a universal adoption of English common law so as to be applicable to the point. Indeed much of the discussion reflects a concern over monarchical practices and loyalty to monarchs and how it was assured by such. The entire discussion reflects a clear understanding that how citizen loyalty to a republic, while as a concept it can be helped in its development by monarchical practices, is different from them.
You assume that they made an error.
it’s really awesome repeating myself constantly for those that cannot do their homework
here we go again:
the founders of the country deliberately inserted the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ for the role of president. why did they do it? it’s no secret. they discussed it.
the point was to insure that the president would not have split allegiances ... at least by birth.
this requirement is only for the office of the president. this is in contrast to the requirement for all other federal offices... that being ‘citizen’.
a naturalized citizen is one that has immigrated and adopted a new country.
a native born citizen is one that has been a citizen from birth.
a natural born citizen is someone that is a citizen naturally... as there are no alternatives (if there were alternatives then split allegiances would be possible)
in order to only have one citizenship possible at birth, a person must be born on the soil of 2 citizen parents
it’s not complicated unless you try to make it complicated. understanding why the wording was inserted is also key to understanding the point.
My home is where I receive mail...duh.
There is a big difference between ‘home’ and the constitution requirement reserved for the office of the presidency.
I think current law says that anchor babies are full, birthright citizens.
I think that argument would win in court, but I think it is wrong and that our naturalization laws need to be rewritten and/or our constitution needs to be amended.
“That particular interpretation has never been established in any court of law. The term remains “ambiguous”.”
Two points:
1. Court of law. The ONLY court of law that can have any say in this is SCOTUS. They may or may not agree with me. A constitutional amendment should be required to fix this.
2. ambiguous: You are correct. Just because the framers knew exactly what they meant (born in the country by two citizen parents), doesn’t mean that anyone today would think so. Do I have much hope that SCOTUS will rule for original intent vs. case law? Not much. Do I think the case law favors my opinion? Yes I do. Will SCOTUS see it my way? I doubt it.
Am I a lawyer? No. Do I need to be? No. I am an intelligent American Citizen. I am not a natural born citizen since my mother was not a citizen of the United States at the time of my birth. Am I less of a citizen than any other? No. Am I any less of a citizen than my mother was after she was naturalized? No. Am I eligible to be president of the United States? Even though my father was a Citizen and I was born in the United States, because my mother was not, the answer is NO. I am okay with that.
I have close family ties to this day with a foreign country. I have sympathies and allegiances with these foreigners. Until the age of majority I was a dual citizen. I could reclaim my foreign citizenship at any time. Would I want my government to choose this other country in a dispute over another country? Yes, I would.
Would someone without all this baggage be a safer bet as Commander in Chief? I would argue, likely yes.
The record is ABOUT the 1790 Naturalization Act. All of the debate regards various concerns in the wording of that 1790 law.
The law covers more than just the section about children born overseas, so the record would reflect discussion regarding the entire law.
The portions excerpted for this article are those portions that directly dealt with children born overseas. Since Blackstone is mentioned, Blackstone’s writing on the subject is included.
Nope. You just said that you would be an American. That’s what I thought.
However, by German law you would have just acquired German citizenship based on a simple vacation. And that fact would have prevented you, according to some birthers, ever being eligible for the presidency.
HERE, HERE, let me associate myself with everything you said!!! Very well spoken(typed). I loved it. Excellent! BRAVO!
And regarding the so-called complexity of the Constitution which you implied when praising Cruz, the Constituton and its amendments are under 30 pages long including empty space. In fact, the Supreme Court has clarified that the Constitution was written so that one-room schooled voters like you and me could understand it.
"3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition." --United States v. Sprague, 1931.
In fact, as much as I reference the Constitution to substantiate my statements, I reference the same clauses over and over again because there's really not much to reference.
Yes, I’ll support him, too. I’m glad to hear that you will.
If there is any reasonable doubt about Ted Cruz's status as a Natural Born Citizen, then the burden is on those challenging that status to present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and all reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.
In this case all if there is any reasonable doubt, then Ted Cruz must be considered a Natural Born Citizen.
Unfortunately for all the committed birthers out there, Obama and Rubio and Jindal are all entitled to the benefit of that doubt.
In my mind, there is no doubt but that Ted Cruz, being born a Citizen at birth is a Natural Born Citizen.
Can you prove beyond any reasonable doubt and to a jury of his peers, such as we find here on Free Republic that he would not be entitled to the Citizenship status of NBC?
If you think you can, then present your evidence. Convince xzins and I and Jim Robinson and Mark Levin of the error of our ways.
If your evidence is not clear and convincing to all Freepers, then I would implore you to give Ted Cruz the benefit of any doubt you might harbor.
Just the evidence, not your opinion. The burden is on you, not Ted Cruz.
We don't even know that. The inference is that they were referring to anybody born after the adoption of the Constitution -- as a foreign-born "present at the founding" would still qualify for the office (as many of them were).
Beyond that, it is left to statutory law, as the Constitution does not bother with a specification for "natural-born citizen".
As it happens, we have only two kinds of citizens -- naturalized citizens and citizens at birth. One is eligible to be president, the other is not.
“Obama set the precedence that it doesn’t matter.”
Obama isn’t even a citizen let alone a natural born one!
He’s an Indonesian and an illegal alien and should be deported!
actually, no. the burden is a burden of proof. it’s up to any wishing to run for office to prove themselves eligible.
that’s why it’s called a burden of proof... not a burden of non-eligibility
your thinking is backwards.
I'm glad that we're finally on the same sheet of music.
**********************************
This may be pathetically ill-informed, and I have no legal background, but let us suppose that Cruz were to be found ineligible for the presidency after he was duly elected. Could then a legal case be made that Obama was also ineligible? Would that make all of his executive orders unlawful after the fact?
I don’t buy that the Cruz situation was in the ‘frontier days’ and or those days in anyway are applicable to the Cruz family situation. I see that Cruz’s father as a ‘denizen’ i.e. an inhabitant/resident years after Cruz’s birth has any bearing as to the facts that 1) the father is as important as to heritage as the mother 2) that Cruz was born in Canada and 3) that the Cruz parents with child continued to live in Canada until they broke with the Castro regime. As of/to now Cruz is ‘walking the talk’ as a Constitutionalist but he has to resolve the Constitution eligibility for POTUSA. I would hope such resolution would not give credence to Obama’s eligibility.
The simple fact that the US Naturalization law wording changed (after only 5 years) from “natural born citizen” to citizen tells us that in 1795 legislators considered the two phrases different.
What I said was “IF” it were frontier days. It was a hypothetical.
However, everyone wants to argue based on the definition of “natural born citizen” at that time, so it only seems fair to wonder about the actual naturalization process at that time.
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.