Comparing the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts

Indiana University ^ | 1790, 1795 | US Congress

[RobbyS]

By action of Congress. One thing is certain, the Constitution is not a legal code but an instrument of government. It does not come with a glossary, nor did the Secretary gives anything like a stenographic records of the meeting. Even Madison’s notes are incomplete because he could not be everywhere. In short, the meaning of “natural-born citizen”except in the most clear cases, is moot. Someone born to American parents in the country is undoubtedly eligible. Someone born to alien parents in their country, is not. But the term is not absolute. We are dealing with a difference in degree, not kind.

[ought-six]

“Natural law as understood by jurists is not the same as the laws of physics.”

I disagree. I believe the Founders (at least the signers of the DOI) clearly differentiated between the two by the phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” I believe they approached the “Laws of Nature” from the standpoint of the philosophy of Stoicism (clearly Jefferson did), and the laws “of Nature’s God” from an ethical standpoint (i.e., moral principles).

[Nero Germanicus]

You forgot the “....shall be considered as natural born citizens” part.

[Ray76]

Not at all. I point out that the foreign born children of citizens have always required a naturalization act.

The act in force at the time of birth controls. The status conferred by the act in force in 1970 is “citizen”.

[Nero Germanicus]

What conservative judges and justices who care about “original intent” have gleaned from the Naturalization Act of 1790 is that the children of citizens born outside the jurisdiction of the United States are natural born citizens and they are therefore exempted from needing naturalzation.
Now if there were real life examples of persons who were born overseas to American citizen parents and were official nationalized (issued a Certificate of Naturalzation) that would be a different story.
Here’s a link to the current rules on who is a Citizen at birth and who is a naturalized citizen, if born overeas.
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

[DiogenesLamp]

And a law which had nothing to do with the meaning of Natural-born citizen.

Exactly. You don't get to redefine the eligibility requirements for the Presidency by accident. An amendment must squarely address an issue for which an Amendment is proposed. I think that is even acknowledged Supreme Court doctrine.

[RobbyS]

Further, the 14th Amendment did not naturalize the members of the Indian nations, That required a statute in 1926. Incidentally, as a person of Chickasaw descent, I much prefer the Canadian term “First Nations”to the “Native American “thing. Doesn’t that include all of us who are native to this country?

[norton]

Fair enough.

[GreenGiant]

Yes, Congress was granted permission to determine who is a Citizen. They were not granted permission to alter who can be eligible for the Presidency, which is a different matter from being a Citizen.

That’s one reason the 1790 Naturalization Act had to be repealed in 1795. It allowed an additional class of people to be “considered as” natural born citizens, who were not under the Constitutionally understood meaning. Without a Constitutional amendment, Congress had altered access to the Presidency. That had to be remedied.

The written definition of “natural born citizen” is found in “Law of Nations”, a primary reference book used by Congress since before they wrote the Declaration of Independence.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” - Law of Nations

[higgmeister]

Found this:

The 1795 Naturalization Act dropped "natural born" status for children born abroad. Washington signed both pieces of legislation so there must have been a reason for the change.

You were right, sr_ss, and it came right from the pen of James Madison, the author of the US Constitution.

NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act

SYNOPSIS:

1) In 1969 Pinckney McElwee uncovered evidence in the House Committee notes from 1795 which indicate that the reason the reference to natural born citizen (NBC), included in the 1790 Naturalization Act, but entirely removed from the 1795 Naturalization Act, was that people would wrongly infer that that Act was actually intending that those born overseas outside the country were to become natural born citizens. Clearly Madison was not wanting to make natural born citizens of the children born overseas to American parents. On June 14, 1967, Representative John Dowdy introduced McElwee’s unpublished article, “Natural Born Citizen” (pg 10), on the House floor, to the U.S. House of Representatives. Until recently, the import of this evidence has been largely unrecognized.

Largely unrecognized until now when it is precisely relevant to this political season.

---

NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act

---

Here is the text of the 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

1795 Naturalization Act text change:

, 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 on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.

James Madison had written "shall be considered as natural born citizens" He did not say, shall be as natural born citizens. In the revised act that abolished the first he corrected his own text to make it less susceptible to misinterpretation.