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.
Here's one example demonstrating that 1st generation born abroad would be British citizens.
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries . . . every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject . . . .”
The correct answer is that this issue needs to be properly decided and that there are many competing theories as to what it means. When you take the totality of the circumstances, there is no bright-line like you keep posting about.
Here's one example demonstrating that 1st generation born abroad would be British citizens.
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries . . . every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject . . . .”
U.S. v Wong Kim Ark
That's describing who would be a natural born subject.
Cite an example stating one such born would be a natural born citizen.
You DO realize subject and citizen are not interchangeable, no?
That's describing who would be a natural born subject.
Cite an example stating one such born would be a natural born citizen.
You DO realize subject and citizen are not interchangeable, no?
Fair enough... where does the 1802 Act state that those born citizens abroad are "natural born citizens?"
Now you're stretching. You have some good points, but you're really stretching yourself out on this argument.
The Founding Fathers deliberately chose to use the term citizens, not subjects. It was a complete break from British law at the time, given that the US was structured to be a Representative Republic and NOT a Monarchy.
They did. It was repealed just 5 years later in 1795, and natural born citizen status for citizens born abroad hasn't been re-instated since, despite the 2004 effort to do so.
They did NOT. They addressed the provisions they wanted changed. They didn't address the provision. having to do with foreign-born children of American fathers. They said NOTHING about that. If it had been an issue, they would have said SOMETHING about it. They certainly addressed other issues. And we went on considering foreign-born children of American fathers as born citizens. Why? What did the 1795 Naturalization Act say about foreign-born children of American fathers?
Cite exactly where English common law states that 'natural born citizen' equates to 'citizen at birth.'
I'll wait...
You can't be shown what you refuse to see.
Frankly, given your penchant for historical invention and self-contradiction, at this point the only ones who would by into your reasoning are the self-delusional.
They did NOT. They addressed the provisions they wanted changed. They didn't address the provision.
In fact, they did. They repealed the entire 1790 Act.
The 1790 Act's relevant part:
"...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..."
The 1795 Act's relevant parts:
"An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject... 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 most recent attempt to declare such foreign-born citizens to be "natural born citizens" for the purpose of Constitutional eligibility FAILED to be enacted in 2004, as I've already posted.
The legislative history is clear... "born citizen" does not equal "natural born citizen."
Frankly, given your penchant for historical invention
I've posted both the pertinent historical document as it directly relates to the natural born citizen requirement in the US Constitution, and US legislative history dating from 1790 to 2004.
I've posted both the pertinent historical document as it directly relates to the natural born citizen requirement in the US Constitution, and US legislative history dating from 1790 to 2004.
What do you have to counter any of that?
That you lied.
I spent way too much time this week end poring over James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, trying to find any evidence of what you proposed. Not only did I not find any evidence, I confirmed that since Hamilton wasn't even present at the Convention when the issue of citizenship qualification was brought up (for Representatives and for Senators), that you simply found a piece of documentation from Alexander Hamilton, didn't bother to actually read it for content, then posted onto this thread as de facto proof of your contention.
"Born a citizen" wasn't adopted in the Constitution. "Natural born citizen" was.
Furthermore there's the legislative history from 1790 to 2004 that I've posted proving that "born citizen" does not equal "natural born citizen."
You just don't want to acknowledge both the historical and legislative truths.
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.
