Notice that the reason for the change was the incorporation of new provisions. The 1795 law is at least twice as long as the 1790. They added that the father of the overseas born could NOT be a British soldier from the war.
And they showed that CITIZEN born to citizen parents AND “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” are EQUIVALENT TERMS.
Earlier they had USED “Natural Born Citizen” because they didn’t see any problem with it being used of those born overseas. They did. That can’t be changed.
Nor can anyone show from any record that there was an objection to using those terms interchangeably.
So, those who wish to believe that “natural born citizen” is only for those born in this country of 2 citizen parents are wrong.
It was not used that way in the 1790 law.
They are entirely free to believe what they want. But the facts are against them when they try to say those who have analyzed it according to the actual record are wrong. The best they can say to them is: “You MIGHT be wrong.”
What I can say to them is: “The Evidence is Against You. “Natural Born Citizen” IS used of those born overseas.
The very beginning of that section explains that citizenship is by geography or by bloodline. That discussion on bloodline is here in 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.
In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a count-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
So, the bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.
Windflier, you have the wrong section of the Foreign Affairs Manual. You have the section that deals with what is to be considered the geography of the United States.
The very beginning of that section explains that citizenship is by geography or by bloodline. That discussion on bloodline is here in 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.
In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a count-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
So, the bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.