[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

What you don’t grasp is that your posts are legitimate, you just don’t understand what you are reading.

[woodpusher]

What you don’t grasp is that your posts are legitimate, you just don’t understand what you are reading.

Aha! You have been reduced to playing stupid!

You want another helping of Lynch v. Clarke I see. Fair enough.

Have another helping of Lynch v. Clarke, picking up where I left off in my #184.

Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 3 Owen 236, 250-252 (1844). You are invited to make believe that you do not understand what this one says grasshopper.

In various statutes which have been enacted from time to time for more than fifty years past, to authorize aliens to take, purchase, hold and convey real estate, the expression used by the legislature in declaring the extent of the rights granted, is that they are to be as full as those of “any natural born citizen,” or of “natural born citizens.” (See Laws of 1806, ch. 164, § 1, 3; of 1807, ch. 123; of 1808, ch. 175; of 1812, ch. 240; of 1825, ch. 310; 1 Rev. Stat., 720; and many others, both general and particular in their application.) In one statute, passed April 27, 1836, Laws of 1836, ch. 200, the alien was to hold land as fully as if he had been a naturalized or natural born citizen; as if those two constituted all the classes of citizens known to our laws. In the nu­merous colonial statutes of naturalization to which I have already referred, the ex­pression which is used, is "natural born subjects." Both expressions assume that birth is a test of citizenship; and the con­tinuance of the language subsequent to the Revolution and to the Federal Constitu­tion, shows that the effect of birth continued to be the same as it was before.

The statutes in favor of aliens, enabling them to take, hold and dispose of real estate, have been very general throughout the United States. I refer to the following as exhibiting the similar use of the term “natural born citizen of the United States,” in contradistinction to aliens, or foreigners not naturalized.

In New Jersey, the act of January 22, 1817. (Elmer’s Digest, 6.)

In Pennsylvania, the act of February 11, 1789; which says natural born subjects, instead of citizens. This act was contin­ued in 1792 and again in 1795. (3 Carey and Bioren's Laws, 299.) In 1799, a similar statute, using the same language as in those of New York, (6 ib.,38.) So in 1807; (Act of February 10th;) and again March 24, 1818. (Purdon’s Digest, 39,40: Ed. 1836.)

In Delaware, act of 1811, ch. 172: 4 Laws of Delaware, 483. On the 11th of June, 1788, a statute was enacted in Delaware, giving to all foreigners then or thereafter residing there, on taking the oath prescribed, all the rights and privileges “of natural born subjects of this state,” except the holding of offices, to which they were entitled after five years residence. (2 Laws of Delaware, 921, ch. 174, b.) For similar laws, using the same language—See Laws of Georgia to 1820, p. 182, Act of Feb. 7, 1785; Revised Statutes of Indiana, 1838, p. 67; Rev. Stat, of Wisconsin, 1833-9, p. 179; Laws of Michigan, ed. 1833, p. 282, Act of March 31, 1827.

In Pennsylvania, the old plan or frame of government, adopted at the revolution, (sec. 42,) gave to every foreigner of good character who came to settle in the state, having first taken the oath of allegiance, the right to hold land, &c., and after one year’s residence he was to be deemed a free denizen of the state, “and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject" of that state. (1 Carey & Bioren's Laws of Pa., 8, note a.) In a statute of that state, passed August 31, 1778, to validate titles, &c., it was enacted that heirs of persons not naturalized, or born out of the allegiance of the crown of Great Britain, might hold, &c., as if the deceased had been born in allegiance, &c. (Pardon's Digest, 38.) Ths same assumption in regard to citizen­ship by birth, is to be found in the statute of Pennsylvania regulating elections, passed February 15, 1799. In order to prove his right to vote, the elector is to take an oath, 1. That he is a natural born citizen of the state, &c. 2. Or that he is a natural bom citizen of some other of the United States, &c. Or 3. That having been a foreigner or alien, he has been naturalized, &c. (Pardon's Dig. 223 ; 3 Carey & Bioren, 340.)

The constitution of Vermont, adopted July 4, 1793, (§39,) contained a provision like that of the Pennsylvania frame of gov­ernment, except that the limitation as to holding offices was restricted to the high­est in the state, and as to those, was at an end after two years residence. The same words were used to illustrate the rights conferred, viz: "natural bom subjects of the state."

In Virginia, an act was passed in 1792, entitled “an act declaring who shall be citizens of this commonwealth,” and pro­viding for acquiring and relinquishing the right of citizenship. The first section pro­vides, “That all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth; all per­sons not being natives, who have obtained a right of citizenship under former laws, and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citi­zens at the time of the birth of such chil­dren, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth,” &c. (1 Rev. Code of Va., 1819, p. 65. And see Barzizas v. Hop­kins, 2 Randolph’s Rep., 278, 281, 282.) This was a substantial re-enactment of a statute passed in May, 1779, ch. 55; (ex­cept that the latter was limited to free white persons,) another in October, 1783, ch 16, 17; and another in October, 1786, ch. 10. These statutes in Virginia were in part declaratory. They were enacted, because of the confusion and doubts on the subject growing out of the revolution, and the adherence, of some of the colonists to the British, government, their subsequent return in some instances, and that of their children in others.

In South Carolina, the act of 1721, pre­scribing the qualification of members of the assembly, required them to be "free born subject" of the British dominions. (3 S. Car. Statutes at Large, 137, § 8th.)

In Tennessee a statute passed in 1819, recites that the policy of the United States has always been to encourage emigration from foreign countries, to increase their population and strength, and that the act enables aliens to take by descent. The first section commences thus: “All per­tons not having been bom in the United States, or otherwise citizens thereof.” &c., as if they had been “native citizens” of the United States. (Statute Laws of Tenn., by Caruthers and Nicholson, ed. of 1836, p. 87.)

These instances from the constitutions and statutes of the various states might be multiplied to a great extent. Those al­ready given, will suffice to show that the universal understanding of the representa­tives of the people of the states in estab­lishing their fundamental and statutory laws, was that every person born within their territory, was by that circumstance alone, a citizen; and in some of the states, the recognition of the doctrine is express.

Lynch v. Clarke was approvingly cited as good law by the United States Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 664 (1898).

That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.