Posted on 02/06/2012 4:32:19 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
Was the Naturalization Act of 1790 designed to cover a specific group of people? You know, like ambassadors serving in a foreign country?
Yes, when there are several quotes in a post, a long paragraph is a long chunk of text.
As for which parts are relevant, anyone wanting to see the whole text and decide otherwise is welcome to click the link or find the citation.
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.
I don't understand why you simply can't put the quote up in context. You're there and it's right at your fingertips so I simply don't see how it can be an onerous task for you. You seem able to find more than snippets.
Your actions, in only supplying snippets, appears (and I emphasize appears) to be a deceptive tactic, whether or not you intend it to be taken as such.
I need you to answer a question so that I know whether or not you're aware of the intent of the Act.
Therefore, here is my question again...
Was the Naturalization Act of 1790 designed to cover a specific group of people? You know, like ambassadors serving in a foreign country?
In the 1770’s it was not unusual to send young children (ages 10 to 12) to Europe for schooling (William Smith, for example) or, like William Temple Franklin, for someone to spent almost their entire adult life in Europe. If they were original born in Virginia and had children while in Europe, their children would be citizens of Virginia, even if the children grew up in Europe.
Obviously, if it could be shown that they were active loyalist that could affect their claim.
It's really rather simple and no long winded diatribe is necessary.
If I may ask something of your hypothetical situation...which side of the war did the man fight for?
And if he didn't actually fight which side did he support?
I'm trying to see whether or not you realize that such a situation as you present, especially in the time frame you've presented, has a direct effect on the children due to their parent's, and most notably their father's, allegiance.
Your question is a "set up" for the unwary or uninformed, plain and simple, without further information to make a determination.
Could affect their claim? How about WOULD determine their fate.
I've made it clear why I do it. You prefer long blocks of text. I don't. I link or cite so people can see context. Those who want to see the whole thing have an easy way to do so.
Your actions, in only supplying snippets, appears (and I emphasize appears) to be a deceptive tactic, whether or not you intend it to be taken as such.
It's certainly an advance on those who post snippets without a link or cite, and when the quote is googled it's on a website that can't remember where it originally came from. Now, a question - do you equally feel it appears deceptive when done by those whose opinion on the NBC question accords with yours?
Nobody learns anything when it's done like that.
You should have been here years ago when the WOsD threads were where the heat was (just look up "WOD schizophrenia") or the environmental threads.
OMG! You wouldn't believe how mangled some of the quotes came out with a wide range of information being intentionally left out, but most especially on how the studies were conducted or on how the results were determined.
I tell you what, I won't say a word to you about it from now on. I will, however, continue to provide the whole quotes even if you, or anyone else, doesn't.
So now, about my question which still remains unanswered...
Was the Naturalization Act of 1790 designed to cover a specific group of people? You know, like ambassadors serving in a foreign country?
The Naturalization Act undoubtedly covered ambassadors serving overseas, but I don’t see anything in the act that would limit it to diplomats. I also don’t see any debate in the Congressional Globe that would indicate some intent that was not obvious - that American citizens whose children were born outside the country would be able to pass on citizenship to those children. If you know of a source indicating there was more to it than that, please link.
And please indicate what relevance it has to the specific thread.
William Temple Franklin was born in 1760. His father was a noted loyalist. He did not follow his father’s allegiance.
My question was directed at Diogeneslamp who queried how someone could be an American citizen while never having resided in the US.
But if it makes you feel better, yes, the father supported the Revolution, the son still never resided in the United States.
Yes, but how likely is that, and would the Congress have created a law for such an uncommon condition? Or would they have a far more common condition in mind?
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country.
If you look it up, you will see that Holland was ruled for a time by Spaniards, appointed stadtholders by Spain, and the office – as Tucker mentions – became hereditary. So his (and other Founders’) concerns were not for those born of foreigners on US soil who are US citizens, but for foreigners born elsewhere who are not, but who might be naturalized only for the purpose of seeking the presidency. See what Joseph Story has to say on this:
It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.
This is well explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #68
these most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
Showing that the chief concern was not US citizens born of foreign immigrants, but rather concern about foreign governments trying to insert their own officials into the US government.
Your response above simply engenders a "huh?" moment for me. You articulate some of the founder's dire concern at keeping out foreign influence in the executive, and you overlook completely how such influence can also be manifest through ties of family, as it is with our current Usurper.
This man was Born (somewhere not yet fully determined to be Hawaii, but even if it is, Hawaii is as far outside the norm among US States as you can get.) of a Foreign Father, whom he idolized in his Fantasy Book, then Adopted and Raised as an Indonesian speaking Muslim for many influential years of his childhood by a Foreign Step-Father in a non-Democratic Islamic nation, spent much of his life referring to his Kenyan Homeland, Would have inherited lands in Kenya (and possibly in Indonesia had the right events occurred.) had he been able to actually PROVE his father was Barack Obama Sr., currently has illegal immigrant relatives living in this nation, has campaigned on behalf of the foreign Despots in Kenya to whom he is related by blood, And you think all of this fits the concept of Keeping out foreign influence in our Executive?
Again, "Huh?" As I said before, "You seem to be wholly content to believe in legal theories which grant (under a stretched interpretation) a technical compliance with some words, but allow for a total violation of the principle involved; That being to prevent unwanted foreign influence in the office of our chief executive.
The Man is barely an American at all, and if that, only by the skin of his teeth. If he was born in Canada, (Not yet ruled out.) He is not EVEN an American.
He is the most UnLoyal (and corrupt) "American" ever to rise so high in our Government. I know EXACTLY how those Dutch Revolutionaries felt about King Philip II!
@View pages 1147 and 1148
February 3, 1790
I find no instance of "children" being mentioned either, yet is is in the bill.
Why is that?
Imagine that! By 1776 he was 16 years old. By 1790 he was 30.
Was his father granted US citizenship or was it denied him due to his loyalties? What did happen to "dear old Dad"?
Was the son denied US citizenship?
Oh, that's right...you're trying to equate State citizenship with US citizenship when the rules were still being ironed out. Never mind.
You are not exchanging messages with a novice. It is not MY SIDE which is second guessing the founders. I have done enough research to realize that the custom and laws of the time period were that the Child is always of the same nationality as his Father,(even for the English) and that his citizenship is a derivative thereof. If the Father changes citizenship, the child also does so automatically. (As does the Wife) Even the Laws of England, which your side partially quotes ad nauseum requires that the Parents must be in ACTUAL Obedience of the King. (Which I interpret as intending to live and reside within the Kings Obedience, i.e. become British. Even then, the Children cannot inherit any lands owned by the Parents)
The NORMAL way of life among human families of the period is that Father and Mother should live together and raise the child with a love of family and country. This pseudo-bastard Obama is completely outside the norm as understood by the founders. By all rights, he should have grown up in Kenya with his father, but when the left is involved, what is natural gets twisted and becomes sick. (There is a reason why the Latin word for left is "sinistra" (sinister.) )
I have a counter situation, in this country, to offer you. Suppose a child is born on US soil to two citizen parents (not particularly patriotic citizens, but US citizens none the less). They move to another country within a few months of the child’s birth, and the child is raised overseas, with whatever extreme ideas the parents hold. The child returns to the US an adult, at the age of 35. Fourteen years later, age 49, he runs for president. Now, undoubtedly this was not the sort of man the Founders would have envisioned as president. However, unacceptable as this man may be, he is legally eligible to run.
Again, he meets the TECHNICAL requirements, but completely violates the Spirit. * Even so, this proposed hypothetical citizen has a better claim on eligibility than does Obama, because NEITHER of Obama's Fathers was ever an American Citizen. He has NEVER been raised by an AMERICAN FATHER.
Now you may argue that the achieved result would be the same, but it overlooks the fact that the Founders could only do their Best to filter it out, and that under extreme circumstances their efforts may very well break down. The best they could hope for is to set forth a rule that will work in MOST circumstances, not all. As Madison had written of the convention regarding what part of the common law was to be recognized: "If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution. "
.
* As I mentioned before: You seem to be wholly content to believe in legal theories which grant (under a stretched interpretation) a technical compliance with some words, but allow for a total violation of the principle involved; That being to prevent unwanted foreign influence in the office of our chief executive.
Two questions I note you did not address.
1. A child born to citizen parents on US soil, taken overseas after a few months, raised there until age 35, returns and runs for president at age 49. Same issues, Constitutionally eligible. Should the Constitution be changed for this situation? Did the Founders err?
2. Are you one of those “living Constitution” people? One who wants to “modernize” without formal amendment because of modern changes - in this case more and faster global travel?
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.