Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Comparing the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts
Indiana University ^ | 1790, 1795 | US Congress

Posted on 01/09/2016 10:58:04 AM PST by sunrise_sunset

1790 Naturalization Act:

"..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..."

1795 Naturalization Act:

"...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..."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1790; 1795; cruz; naturalborncitizen; naturalizationact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: MamaTexan
A PING for your thoughts on post 28 since it ties into the discussion yesterday.

My theory is that they put the phrase in the 1790 act out of habit from using the term, but the then extant philosophers of natural law pointed out to them that Congress had no power over what is "natural", and in the subsequent revision of 1795, they corrected this oversight.

Possibly people also pointed out that it would be interpreted as granting foreign born children the ability to become President, and perhaps the congress, on second thought, didn't want to go that far.

41 posted on 01/09/2016 1:18:04 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Natural Born Citizen is an axiomatic extension of the founding doctrine of the US. It's called "Natural Law", and it was a "thing" in the last half of the 18th century. It was a very big "thing" back then.

And if the 1790 act chose to give a description of what a NBC was and subsequent acts never chose to rescind that definition I will go with the precedent.

42 posted on 01/09/2016 1:19:29 PM PST by Starstruck (I'm usually sarcastic. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
Citizen at birth and Natural Born citizen are also redundant.

This is not true. Natural Born Citizens existed after July 4, 1776 without any resort to statute law. It is obvious that their existence is not dependent upon statute law.

Therefore, someone who's citizenship *is* dependent upon (subsequent to 1776) statue law, cannot be the Natural Born citizens which the founders spoke of in 1787.

43 posted on 01/09/2016 1:22:22 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sunrise_sunset; All

Note that the first two presidents, Washington and Adams, were known for signing bills into law which both Madison and Jefferson argued were not reasonably based on constitutionally delegated powers.

In fact, note that probably one of the reasons that Madison is generally regarded as the father of the Constitution is that he was given a front-row-center seat at the Conventional Convention so he could record the discussions on paper.

On the other hand, I suspect that retired military genius George Washington, the president of the Constitutional Convention, got bored with some of the discussions and let his mind wander back to the battle field.


44 posted on 01/09/2016 1:23:52 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

Supreme Court does say Congress has the power of naturalization. The law that made Cruz a citizen is an act or statute of naturalization without any action or endeavor from an individual.


45 posted on 01/09/2016 1:24:46 PM PST by Red Steel (Ted Cruz: 'I'm a Big Fan of Donald Trump')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

The “they” in 1790 were, many of them, at tyne Convention or involved in its ratification. In 1795, the membership has changed substantially.


46 posted on 01/09/2016 1:24:56 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
And if the 1790 act chose to give a description of what a NBC was and subsequent acts never chose to rescind that definition I will go with the precedent.

The 1790 act did not give a description of what a Natural Born Citizen was. It simply said that those born in Foreign countries to an American Father would be "considered as natural born citizens. "

It means Adopted Children would be treated as if they were blood offspring. It doesn't mean that they were.

47 posted on 01/09/2016 1:27:09 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Washington was more politician than General. A first-rate politician, a second-rate general.


48 posted on 01/09/2016 1:27:12 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sunrise_sunset

I am not an expert on this. Nor do I wish to debate the finer points of those two acts. I do want to point out there were naturalization acts passed well into the 1980’s (I think.)

You have to look at this in its totality, up to the most recent changes.

Anyway, we’ve already had one foreigner as president. Why not another? (Rhetorical and sarcastically alert!)


49 posted on 01/09/2016 1:29:37 PM PST by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomjusticeruleoflaw

I thought the constitution gave Congress or the States the right to make the determination of who was a citizen. Therefore, they would have the right to make that determination.


50 posted on 01/09/2016 1:32:49 PM PST by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

I had three children born at Landstuhl Army Hospital in Germany. The place was a baby-factory and probably forty babies a month were “dropped” there. So there are (by my reckoning )more than 20,000 Americans who are not qualified to be president according to their theory. What gets me is that these people are reading back the 14th Amendment into the original document.


51 posted on 01/09/2016 1:34:40 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; All
"Washington was more politician than General. A first-rate politician, a second-rate general."

Washington is said to have discouraged political parties so I question that.

52 posted on 01/09/2016 1:35:48 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The law that made Cruz a citizen is an act or statute of naturalization without any action or endeavor from an individual

And since SCOTUS has never ruled on the definition of NBC we have only the Congressional definition signed into Law by the President of the United States. This definition has never been overruled by Congress or the Courts.

53 posted on 01/09/2016 1:36:09 PM PST by Starstruck (I'm usually sarcastic. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PJBankard

“If the understanding that citizens born abroad to us citizens have always been natural-born,...”

Wouldn’t this mean that it should be understood that the children of foreigners born abroad in the USA are born with the citizenship of their parents and not US citizenship? As by giving those children US citizenship, one would think it would work that children of US citizens born abroad would not be US citizens? The mirror doesn’t reflect the image...


54 posted on 01/09/2016 1:37:05 PM PST by This I Wonder32460
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sunrise_sunset

Unfortunately, neither of those snippets of law clear up the one parent or two parent question.


55 posted on 01/09/2016 1:37:37 PM PST by Fresh Wind (Falcon 105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

Maybe so but ‘naturalization’ is not a ‘natural’ act.


56 posted on 01/09/2016 1:38:21 PM PST by Red Steel (Ted Cruz: 'I'm a Big Fan of Donald Trump')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: This I Wonder32460

The law varies from one country to the next, regarding citizenship at birth. Always has.


57 posted on 01/09/2016 1:38:44 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

In all seriousness, and not to get off topic too much: But have you ever been at any government meeting. Trying to sit through a Selectmens’ meeting is torture.

Can you imagine how boring many of these discussions must have been. Arguments between philosophy majors and lawyers sound like a horrible way to spend an afternoon.


58 posted on 01/09/2016 1:42:05 PM PST by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
It simply said that those born in Foreign countries to an American Father would be "considered as natural born citizens. "

OK, that's it, I see where you are at. I won't be responding to you anymore. It's like trying to talk to a liberal.

59 posted on 01/09/2016 1:42:20 PM PST by Starstruck (I'm usually sarcastic. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

My sister was born in Tokyo in 1954. Because she was not born in the army hospital, she held dual citizenship until she was 21. Sounds cool. But it was a pain in the ass the first time she needed to prove citizenship for her passport. For some reason the would not accept her army paperwork, so she had to get docs from the Japanese Embassy.


60 posted on 01/09/2016 1:45:22 PM PST by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson