Replies

The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”

Thank you for that. It was never quite clear during the Obama birth certificate hunt whether there were two types of citzenship, natural born and naturalized, or if there was a third type of citizenship at birth which wasn't natual born for some reason. Since the exact term "natural born" only applied to the requiremnents for president and vice president I had seen no statute which clearly defined it. That 1790 law comes as close as I have seen and makes it pretty clear that natural born and citizen at birth are the same and there are only two types of citizenship.

was never quite clear during the Obama birth certificate hunt whether there were two types of citzenship, natural born and naturalized, or if there was a third type of citizenship at birth which wasn't natual born for some reason. Since the exact term "natural born" only applied to the requiremnents for president and vice president I had seen no statute which clearly defined it. That 1790 law comes as close as I have seen and makes it pretty clear that natural born and citizen at birth are the same and there are only two types of citizenship.

A very true and accurate summary of the confusion that reigned during those debates. It also didn't help matters that there were Birth Certificate questions running parallel with the argumentation above. It all made it a confused mess.

I too feel grateful for this post. The portion in bold you explained is indeed the critical portion that kept the, shall we call them "ONBC deniers" (for Obama Natural Born Citizen) going. This is in contrast to, say, the "BC deniers" (Birth Certificate deniers" the arguments of which are not affected by this post. Both are considered "birthers" though.

While there may indeed be some valid concerns surrounding his birth certificate, I don't see any benefit in pursuing such prosecution now. He's going to be gone less than two years. I'll be sure to duck all un-founded accusations of disrespect for the Constitution.

It's time to focus on the extremely difficult (if not impossible) task of rebuilding this nation. Cruz is a part of that plan. No sense in arguing about "preserving the Constitution" if there's none of it left to preserve.

natural born and citizen at birth are the same

Are you sure about this? What about anchor babies?

The Naturalization Act of 1790 refers to "children of citizens." Anchor babies are children of non-citizens who were born here.

How do you reconcile the language in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the concept of anchor babies both being natural born citizens at birth, within the context of the language of the Act?

-PJ

Thank you for that. It was never quite clear during the Obama birth certificate hunt whether there were two types of citzenship, natural born and naturalized, or if there was a third type of citizenship at birth which wasn't natual born for some reason. Since the exact term "natural born" only applied to the requiremnents for president and vice president I had seen no statute which clearly defined it. That 1790 law comes as close as I have seen and makes it pretty clear that natural born and citizen at birth are the same and there are only two types of citizenship.

Do not celebrate yet. That 1790 statute which the author foolishly included specifically says that if your father is a foreigner, you can't have citizenship at all.

It is the height of idiocy to quote *THAT* particular statute in an effort to support Ted Cruz.