Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Seizethecarp; All
Simply being born in the country (to alien parent(s))...even after the Revolution and prior to the U.S. Constitution, did NOT grant "citizenship" (let alone "natural born Citizenship") in some states. South Carolina was one such state.

The administration of the "father" of the U.S. Constitution did NOT recognize such children as citizens either.

"THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison’s Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship.

...

The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens. This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth. The article makes clear that the United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.

This was the official decision despite McClure having been born in South Carolina in 1785 to a father who was naturalized months later in 1786. Armstrong informed the French authorities that the man was not a U.S. citizen, and McClure was left in French custody. The article by PUBLIUS indicates that Armstrong might have mis-applied the 1802 Naturalization Act, but PUBLIUS also makes clear that McClure was not a citizen by virtue of his native birth in South Carolina:

There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginia’s statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS. Simply being a “son of the soil” was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution. Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen. That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair.

..."

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/

37 posted on 05/02/2012 12:13:59 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: rxsid
Great post! Thanks for the ping. More support for the “legal term of art,” natural born citizen, as affirmed explicitly in Minor v Happersett.
38 posted on 05/02/2012 12:46:02 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: rxsid

Leo credits you for finding that newspaper article. It is EXCELLENT evidence. It summarizes the argument in a nutshell, and demonstrates that it was the common thinking of the time.

You are to be commended for finding this. I think it is currently one of the bests proofs available. The Obots really have no means of refuting it.

Again, thank you for your efforts in the service of our country.


42 posted on 05/02/2012 2:25:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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