Replies

The Illinois hearing officer did not produce a reasoned decision, just summarily asserted that no naturalization process manes not naturalized. Cruz's memorandum of law did not address the arguments presented in the complaint.

I am not even slightly surprised. I see the same fallacy reasoning repeated in these threads. Much ignorance out there.

You've been researching this issue for quite awhile too. Within this last year, I came up with a theory that the usage of the word "citizen" betrays it's origins and meaning.

The default term in 1776 was "subject." The founders deliberately tossed this well known and well used term in favor of this relatively new "citizen" thing.

Where did they get the idea to start calling themselves "citizens"? If you read Shakespeare or Blackstone, you find the term used to describe the inhabitants of a city. "Denizens" of a City. "City-Zens."

The usage of the word to describe member of a large nation does not appear to be common place in 1776. The word "citizen" is however used in a very influential treatise of that period.

Chapter 19, Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"

"Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."

I am thinking that the word "citizen" is itself proof that the origin of it's usage by our nation is Vattel.

Again, the normal and usual word up till that time was "subject." Using the word "citizen" appears to be an inspiration, and a deliberate break from the character of a "subject."