Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Minor v.Happersett still good law? It was decided in 1875 and states clearly that:
Quote:
"Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress,
as early as 1790, provided that ..... the children of citizens of the
United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the
United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in
all the naturalization laws adopted since."
Additionally, the opinion states:
Quote:
"From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation
upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by
naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would
have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors
were already citizens by birth."
Can this not be interpreted to mean that the intent of the Naturalization Act of 1790, going forward was to identify children born outside the US to a Natural Born Citizen, would be deemed a "Natural Born Citizen" because those children are not required to undergo the Naturalization process to gain citizenship?
Is Minor v.Happersett still good law? It was decided in 1875 and states clearly that:
"Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided that ..... the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
That law was repealed in 1795.
The Naturalization Act of 1790...
"...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."
But that Act was repealed only 5 years later in 1795, and no longer were children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits of the United States considered to be natural born citizens. They were only citizens.
"...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..."
"...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."
But that Act was repealed only 5 years later in 1795, and no longer were children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits of the United States considered to be natural born citizens. They were only citizens.
"...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..."
Yet it is cited in an 1875 Supreme Court decision that indicates that the underlying intent continues to be relied upon and expanded in the Naturalization Process.
Yet it is cited in an 1875 Supreme Court decision that indicates that the underlying intent continues to be relied upon and expanded in the Naturalization Process.
How does citing a repealed statute make any such opinion valid?
That's like saying abortion is illegal because before Roe v. Wade, it was illegal.
“Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United Statesâ€: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.
I'm VERY disappointed by how VERY little history city-data posters know.
Good grief... no wonder we get stuck with ****ty politicians in positions of power.
Further, if you look at both laws together, you will note that the language is nearly identical, except in the 1790 act, the two groups are separated into two sentences, i.e., Sentence one, children of naturalized citizens shall be considered citizens. [PERIOD] And children on citizens born ...out of the limits of the US shall be considered NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
In the 1795 law, there is only a single sentence, i.e., children born of naturalized parents and children born outside the US to US citizens shall be considered citizens.
In the 1795 law, because both classes of individuals are lumped together in a single sentence, it would not make sense to use Natural Born Citizen to describe both classes as had been the intent in the 1970 legislation.
Therefore, to claim that the absence of "natural born" in the 1795 Act means that the intent is no longer valid can be argued as false and that the reason for its absence is that using the term "natural born" to describe both classes would be inaccurate, since the first group are not citizens at the time of their birth, but are naturalized later.
The Supreme Court's opinion in Minor DID NOT interpret the absence of "natural born" in the 1795 Act to mean that children born to US citizens overseas were no longer deemed natural born citizens. Therefore, Cruz should be deemed a natural born citizen.
Doesn't InformedConsent constantly insist that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants are not citizens of the United States?
Yes, because they are NOT born to legally established permanent residents, which the WKA ruling established was necessary for citizenship status under the 14th Amendment LONG after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Anything regarding citizenship referring to the 14th Amendment must look at 14th Amendment SCOTUS cases. In the US v. WKA, SCOTUS ruled that WKA was a citizen because he was born in the US to legally established permanently domiciled alien parents.
Illegal aliens ae NOT legally established residents.
How does citing a repealed statute make any such opinion valid?
That's like saying abortion is illegal because before Roe v. Wade, it was illegal.
The intent of the act was not repealed. I provided further explanation in another post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
