Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan
On second thought, I agree with you. An amendment or law recognizing new groups as citizens could not retroactively add natural-born status to them. So I guess they came in as a variant of naturalized citizen.

It is my argument that the 14th Amendment is nothing but a naturalization amendment, and was never anything else. I keep coming back to this statement by Chief Justice Waite:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

What does it mean when the 14th amendment plainly says this?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...

Could he possibly mean that the 14th amendment does not say who shall be "natural born citizens"?

83 posted on 11/20/2012 9:36:44 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp; Mr Rogers
“the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

If the fundamental rule is citizenship by birth within the country, then there is no room for a special subset of those born within the country to citizen parents.

Also, if there were such a special category, it seems odd he wouldn't mention it during a discussion of other exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship.

87 posted on 11/20/2012 10:11:35 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson