For one thing, notice that the Naturalization Act of 1790 states that "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…
Except that subsequent law allowed citizenship rights and the right to vote to non-white people. It might come as a big surprise to you but both Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice are not only citizens but also have the right to vote contrary to what the Naturalization Act of 1790 states and other laws in force at the time it was written. The statement “And the children of such persons 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” grants automatic citizenship to the minor children of naturalized citizens but makes no mention of whether those children were born here or not.
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:"
One again I will attempt to explain to you that the provision of a person born outside of the United States to have a parent or parents with US citizenship only applies to persons born outside of the US. It does not apply to those born in the US.
But.....in the 14th Amendment we only see, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are "citizens" It does not say that such persons are considered as citizens or to be declared as citizens. It just says they are "Citizens".
OK. You have me totally confused. On one hand you are a saying the 14th says they are not citizens but OTOH, you are saying it doesn’t say that and they are?
Again the 14th states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are "citizens". A person not born in the United States, unless they fall under the “beyond the sea” and to a parent or to parents with US citizenship require “naturalization” where as someone born in the United States does not require “naturalization”. Why? Because those born in the United States are already natural born citizens.
Correct. At that time in our nation's history black men had not yet achieved citizenship and the Act was lengthening the required residence period to two years before one could apply for citizenship. The Act also granted (at birth) U.S. citizenship to foreign born children of U.S. citizens.
Except that subsequent law allowed citizenship rights and the right to vote to non-white people. It might come as a big surprise to you but both Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice are not only citizens but also have the right to vote contrary to what the Naturalization Act of 1790 states and other laws in force at the time it was written. The statement “And the children of such persons 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” grants automatic citizenship to the minor children of naturalized citizens but makes no mention of whether those children were born here or not.
That's correct also. We fought a civil war to insure the black man's citizenship. Yes, I did hear (rolling my eyes) that Clarence and Condoleeza had both registered to vote. But....in 1790 these things were not yet on the table.
As far as children of naturalized citizens under the age of 21 being given the gift of citizenship....it does not call them "Natural Born Citizens". It calls them "Citizens". Whether they were born in the U.S. or not..... is a moot point. That's why the law only called them "Citizens" and not "Natural Born". Their parents were not citizens when they were born! Elementary!
Here is the exact wording from the Act itself: And the children of such persons 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.
One again I will attempt to explain to you that the provision of a person born outside of the United States to have a parent or parents with US citizenship only applies to persons born outside of the US. It does not apply to those born in the US.
The provision of a person born outside the U.S. only applies to a person born outside the U.S.????????
What the 1790 Act did was to confer citizenship upon these folks and they should be considered as "Natural Born Citizens" because their parents were citizens. Prior to the Act they were not considered "Natural Born Citizens".
Here is the exact wording:
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:
OK. You have me totally confused. On one hand you are a saying the 14th says they are not citizens but OTOH, you are saying it doesn’t say that and they are?
I'll go slow...........The 14th amendment had every opportunity to clarify what you wish was the case......and did not.
In contrast to the Naturalization Act of 1790 the 14th amendment no where refers to anyone as "Natural Born". It simply says this, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens".......period! It does not mention the word "Considered" nor does it say they are "Declared to be". It simply says they are "citizens"!
So....the question becomes, Is there a distinction between the words "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen"? This distinction indeed was present during the eighteenth century as you can see by the words in the Act of 1790.
Constitutional "Natural Born Citizen" is mentioned in the context of Presidential eligibility and will eventually mean whatever the Supreme Court wants it to mean. There is no Federal statute yet that defines this term. That's why we must go to the source of the term and the understanding of the populace of the era.
The purpose of the "Natural Born" clause in the Constitution was expressly designed to keep foreigners from the presidency. Birth on U.S. soil does not preclude foreign Nationality. A child born in this country to a non U.S. citizen is born with U.S. Citizenship (jus soli principle) and foreign citizenship (jus sanguinis princple) and although that child is born a U.S. citizen they are still considered a subject of a foreign country.
When Barack Obama was born (let's say in Hawaii) he was considered a British subject as well.....because his father was one and under the laws of Great Britain....they too considered him to be a British subject as Kenya was part of the Commonwealth. This is the reason the Constitution specifies "Natural Born" as the requirement for the office of the Presidency. The framers did not want anyone to assume the highest office in the land who would possibly have any foreign allegiances. This is why the clause states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, "or a Citizen" of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"............ In other words.....you can be the child of a non citizen and attain the presidency because we realize that everyone alive at the signing of this document is the child of a non U.S. Citizen. But.....later on, after a couple of generations we don't want anyone running for that office who is not the child of U.S. Citizens......themselves! Elementary!