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.
Was John McCain born in the US? If he had won enough electoral votes would he have become President?
Current citizenship law covers Senator Cruz’ birth circumstance:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”—8 U.S.C. § 1401
The original thinking of the Founding Fathers on this issue was codified in the Naturalization Act of 1790: “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”.
“Obama set the precedence that it doesn’t matter.”
Obama means nothing to us
Blood or Soil
Citizenship at Birth = Natural Born Citizenship
Thanks for posting this. It saved me from having to compose a thread of my own.
Last I checked Louisiana State wasn’t in Congress debating the 1790’s naturalization act.
On the other hand, references to British law and Blackstone WERE there as testified to by the record itself.
“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.”
We just have to be prepared for when the media sticks in Canada and Cuba into every mention of Cruz. Because you know that’s what they will do.
did you get your law degree from the matchbook cover school of law and shoe repair?
I was a Freeper long before you, and I've been part of the Obama debates on Free Republic from their inception.
In the same way as you ignore other facts, you don't look up simple ones like these before making off-the-wall comments.
Source, please.
That particular interpretation has never been established in any court of law. The term remains "ambiguous".
In your mind, perhaps.
But not in law.
It's going down hard for the Obama-birthers. The facts are causing more "kicking against the pricks".
I'm hoping they'll come around. Some though, see intransigence even when wrong to be a matter of honor...or saving face...or something.
I'm fairly sure that others are planted disrupters.
So, are you claiming to be a lawyer. Did I get that right!???
I was a Freeper long before you, and I’ve been part of the Obama debates on Free Republic from their inception.
Wrong, I was a freeper before your listed date...just because my date shows later does not mean it is when I arrived and registered. I had a registration change.
second if you were part of the eligibility discussions then you would be aware of my and others lengthy discussions and debates and the results/conclusions of those discussions and debates
I wish you well, but you are not making points for your agenda.
Cruz actually was a published editor of Harvard Law Review graduating with a magna cum laude degree in law. He actually did law clerk for chief justice, conservative, William Rehnquist. He really was called “off the charts brilliant” by enemy liberal, law professor Alan Dershowitz. He really was editor of the Latino Harvard Law Review. He really did argue before the Supreme Court scores of cases. He really was solicitor general of Texas, successfully defending conservative positions at every turn.
He really is a Hispanic who is conservative and able to disprove the notion that Hispanics reject conservatism.
So, there is nothing shallow at all about Ted Cruz. And when it comes to the Constitution, he is a constitutional lawyer for years now.
So, are you claiming to be a lawyer. Did I get that right!???
I think you have a reading comprehension problem.
Adios I have no more time to waste with you on this lovely holiday....
“The original thinking of the Founding Fathers on this issue was codified in the Naturalization Act of 1790: “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”.”
Your ignorance is on display or you know better and on purpose are trying to deceive.
the Naturalization Act of 1790 was REPEALED in 1795 and the words “natural” & “born” were removed. Congress made an error and then fixed it. Unless Ted Cruz was born between 1790 and 1795 the Naturalization Act of 1790 won’t be of any help to his cause.
You couldn’t have been on Free Republic “long before” me, because it only opened to the public a year before me, and I lurked for part of that time.
So, you changed your registration in 2000, 2.5 years after my registration.
What was your original Freeper name?
That was uncalled for.
Xzins: So, are you claiming to be a lawyer. Did I get that right!???
RS: I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Adios I have no more time to waste with you on this lovely holiday....
Sounds to me like you have left the field for some reason....caught, perhaps, in a misrepresentation.
see #98
I believe that you have hit the nail on the head there.
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.