Replies

Yes, our own law. But the language they were all familiar with in the legal terms “natural born” and “naturalized” - came from England.

There is also nothing in the Constitution or U.S. law that would differentiate a U.S. citizen at birth and one who was a natural born citizen.

The term “native born” is not used in the Constitution.

Going with what the Constitution ACTUALLY says - there are currently two types of U.S. citizen as outlined by the U.S. Constitution - natural born and naturalized.

37 posted on 05/04/2012 9:15:45 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)

But the language they were all familiar with in the legal terms “natural born” and “naturalized” - came from England.
So no other nations had laws governing their citizens and only the British model of citizenship was used as a source.
Sorry, just ain't buying it.

And, contrary to your implication, the principle behind it was completely different...sovereign citizens aren't subjects.

38 posted on 05/04/2012 9:25:02 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)

There is also nothing in the Constitution or U.S. law that would differentiate a U.S. citizen at birth and one who was a natural born citizen.
On the contrary. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 does just that..."establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
Why empower Congress in such a manner if there was no need to differentiate the two as you imply?

41 posted on 05/04/2012 9:29:53 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)