Our First And Third Congress Defined Natural Born Citizen

Nationality Act of 1790-1795 ^ | January 8th, 2016 | Uncle Sham

[Uncle Sham]

For a five year period of time, the term “Natural Born Citizen” had a definition which differed from the “two-citizen parents, born under United States jurisdiction” description generally accepted for most of this nation’s existence. The Nationality Act of 1790 referred to those born to citizens beyond Sea or out of the limits of the United States as being “natural born citizens”. Because of the term “citizens” as it pertains to parentage, there is an argument to be made that this requires two citizen parents for this to be allowed. Below is a quote from the 1790 Act. Since this act would have been enforced on a case by case basis, the term “children” could just as easily be “child”.

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

”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: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”

This Act was repealed in 1795 and the term “natural born citizens” was changed to read “citizens”. What this did was tell us that a location of birth WAS PART of being a “natural born citizen”, and in fact, the location was someplace OTHER THAN “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States”. This also told us exactly what someone was who was born to citizens of the United States outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, a ”citizen” Once again, even in this case, there appears to be a need for two citizen parents.

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

”SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of CITIZENS of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.”

The combination of these two Acts, passed when they were, in the order that they were passed, by many who helped form this nation, gives us a clear understanding of what they thought constituted a “natural born citizen”. The term did not disappear from the Constitution, nor has it ever been defined since this time so the category of “natural born citizen” still exists. Since it does still exist, it IS’NT someone born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. That leaves only one location that is acceptable and it has to be within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. It also seems that there is a requirement for two citizen parents.

Kenya, Canada. Neither one of them meet the standard.

[Godebert]

Only Natural Law can define a natural born Citizen. Congress only has the power of naturalization.

The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4

[MosesKnows]

Natural Born Citizen

This thread is among several threads with the theme of defining a Natural Born Citizen.

That is all well and good and interesting but I pose a slightly different question. The slightly different question assumes that Ted Cruz is a legal natural born citizen.

With that in mind the question is:
Why did the founders specify No Person except a natural born Citizen to the requirements for a presidential candidate but did not specify No Person except a natural born Citizen to the requirements for congressional candidates?

That question solicits very few opinions and even fewer answers in response.

Do any of you have an opinion regarding my question?

[Cboldt]

-- If there were enforceable legal conditions showing Cruz to be ineligible, one must assume it would have been out there instead of being debated on FR or by some Dem that decided to make noise about it --

A this point in time, presidential elections have an inverted burden of proof. A person who says or acts as though he is eligible, is deemed to be so from the start. The state and federal election officers don't demand any evidence other than a sworn statement from the parties. Courts won't touch the question either because a plaintiff has no standing, or because courts aren't the body empowered to find eligibility, Congress is. So, if the natural born citizenship is in any way questionable (say being born in a different country), there is no venue to "officially" decide the issue. This naturally leads to some amount of public debate, which is never resolved.

The debate of Obama's NBC status continues, even though he is deemed to be an NBC.

I don't see the facts of Cruz's birth to be an issue. All agree he was born in Canada, and it will be easy enough to prove he is a 1401(g) citizen of the United States. In Cruz's case, the issue is purely one of law, there is no question of fact. Is a person born out of the country, born a citizen of that country, who is also a citizen of the united states by operation of a statute, a natural born citizen of the united states? We'll never get an answer from a court, and if elected, Congress will probably seat Cruz without touching the question.

OTOH, it is possible, likely if the House is majority DEM, that the issue will come up after counting of the electoral votes, and Congress will, at that point, find Cruz ineligible. It has that power, no question.

[Yosemitest]

Take a close read of the members of the 1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives and you'll find that they are the ones who wrote the Constitution, and well as the The Naturalization Act of 1790
.Its well defined in The Naturalization Act of 1790.
Let's read it , too !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
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,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person 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. 

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: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[Cboldt]

Just on the legalese ...

-- Nothing says that legalese cannot consider two events, that it decides to differentiate between, to be/meet the same end condition. --

The effect of "deeming" is to eradicate legal differentiation. Two things/circumstances that are in fact different, are treated in law as though they are not different.

Like your baseball example. If the rule is "touch home plate", but runs score when a base runner does not touch home plate, then two circumstances that are different (one being touching home plate and the other being not touching home plate, but crossing within half a foot directly above it) are treated by the umpire as being the same. In one case, there is a "legal fiction" that crossing home plate within half a foot directly above is touching home plate. Same effect in the game, a run scores. As far as the game is concerned, there is no difference between touching the plate and not touching the plate.

[jjotto]

Related, but not directly addressing your question:

The Founding Fathers, in considering a religious qualification for holding office, pointed out that successful political candidates, even ‘Papists, Jews or Mahometans’, would have either proven themselves trustworthy by their fellow citizens, or the nation would have changed so much that it wouldn’t make a difference.

http://www.increasinglearning.com/the-religious-test-clause.html

...Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases.

First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.

Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen.

I leave to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves...

[DoodleDawg]

Our First And Third Congress Defined Natural Born Citizen.

Congress has redefined who is a natural-born citizen a number of times since then. When Winston Churchill addressed Congress in December 1941 he famously noted that had his father been born in the U.S. instead of his mother then he might have gotten there on his own. That's because when Churchill was born children born abroad to one U.S. citizen were U.S. citizen only if the citizen parent had been the father. It has been changed since then.

[Uncle Sham]

You keep posting about that 1790 Act as though it still exist. It was REPEALED by the Act of 1795 and there was a change made to the end result of being born outside the limits or jurisdiction of the United States to a citizen parent or parents. Please address what this change means as to what these folks thought about natural born citizenship. Did they redefine, or perhaps, correct it with the repeal? The term still exist in the Constitution. It must have meaning.

If the 1790 Act never existed and the 1795 Act using the term "citizen" was all we had to go on, how would that suffice as definition of "natural born citizen"?

[AFret.]

Anyone born to an adult citizen is a citizen regardless of where they are born

---

Well that settles it then..thanks. Now I wonder what all the dust-up was about with Jugheads pedigree..based on your careful analysis..our president is obviously a NBC.

Happy Trails..

[editor-surveyor]

.
No, Obama was born to a minor, so he had to be naturalized (1983)

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “That’s because when Churchill was born children born abroad to one U.S. citizen were U.S. citizen only if the citizen parent had been the father.” <<

No, that has never been so.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Both terms mean the same thing. They are interchangable in every respect.

Stop trolling!

[Uncle Sham]

You insist they mean the same thing. Please prove it because your insisting is not enough.

[chicken head]

So, What would Barry’s citizenship be sense his father was from africa? thx

[editor-surveyor]

.
You posted the act without reading it?

Read it.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Where his mother is from is irrelevant.

Was she naturalized before he was born?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

citizen is natural born

ChiCom anchor babies.

[UCANSEE2]

LOL...is the Cuban BC your own creation?

No. I was searching for the BC's involving Cruz, and it was late at night and I was tired, and I didn't even look that close at it. I goofed big time.

: )

[Godebert]

Why did the founders specify No Person except a natural born Citizen to the requirements for a presidential candidate but did not specify No Person except a natural born Citizen to the requirements for congressional candidates? That question solicits very few opinions and even fewer answers in response. Do any of you have an opinion regarding my question?

Answer:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. " .....John Jay letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787

[Oklahoma]

His father was Frank Marshall Davis from Kansas.