Q: From what source came the statute of 1700, which said: "BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by his Honor ... and the General Assembly and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same that the before mentioned several Persons and each and every of them shall be and hereby are declared to be naturalized to all Intents Constructions and purposes whatsoever and from henceforth and at all Times hereafter shall be entitled to have and enjoy all the Rights Liberties Privileges and Advantages which his Majesty’s Natural born Subjects ... enjoy or ought to have and enjoy as fully to all Intents and purposes whatsoever as if all and every of them had been born within ...."
Was the statute from France, England, Denmark, New York, or Maine?
Q: From what source came the statute of 1784, which said: "[T]hereupon, and thereafter taken to be citizens of this ... , and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
Was the statute from France, England, Denmark, Massachusetts, or Kentucky?
Q: From what source came the following legal language: [T]he children of citizens of ... that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of ... , shall be considered as natural born Citizens.
Was that legal language from the French, the Swiss, the British, the Confederate Constitution of the U.S., or the United States?
Q: Which of the following persons did not qualify as natural born citizens of the U.S.: Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Charles Curtis, Hubert Humphrey, Spiro Agnew, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Fremont, Charles Evans Hughes, Bill Richardson, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, George Romney, Lowell Weicker, Barry Goldwater.
COMMENTS:
Neither the original of Vattel's treatise nor any English translation before 1797 used the terminology "natural born citizen."
Suppose the person who translated the 1797 version of Vattel's treatise, 30 years after his death, had translated to say "those who are native citizens at birth are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens."
Had that been the translation, it would have been encompassed within, and not inconsistent with, British law and precedent from 1731, which extended frther to provide that the status of being "natural born" applied as follows: "A]ll children born out of the ligenace of the crown of England or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such ligeance, whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the crown of England or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited clause in the said act...and of this present act be adjudged and taken to be, and all such children are hereby declared to be natural-born subjects of the crown of Great Britain to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever."
Had Vattel been thus translated, clearly, it would not have precluded Americans from having a broader understanding of who shall naturally be a "citizen at birth," in the ordinary course of the common law as inherited through Britain. Such a translation would have been at least as faithful to the original French as the translation of 1797, 30 years after Vattel's death, that, in reconstructivist approach, took into account the American Revolution, the American Constitution, the drafting of the Rights of Man, and the French
Revolution. Indeed, before the French Revolution, ordinary Frenchmen were hardly more like citizens or less like subjects than their British counterparts. Simply put, the words "natural born citizen" were not in Vattel's original, nor in any English edition that was available to the American Founders at any time between 1775 and 1790.
Rather, the most direct or word for word translation of the original ("Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens") would likely be more like this: "The natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, close relations of whom are citizens." The word "Citoyens" in the original treatise refers to the "parens" -- not to the children. The words referred to the children are
"Les Naturels ou indigènes." However, to say that children of parents who are citizens will be naturals or indigènes is not to say that such children themselves will be citizens, much less "natural born citizens." To suggest that such children should "succeed" to the rights of their parents (or father) is not to specify when such succession should occur, or whether it may be forfeited. After all, not every nation need guarantee status of citizenship, whether "natural" or "artificial." Indeed, nations sometimes think it natural or reasonable to require that status of citizenship be earned at some point after reaching an age of responsibility.
In any event, the term, natural born citizen, simply does not occur in a direct translation of Vattel. Rather, what was available to the Founders of 1787 with regard to the terminology of "natural born" citizen was in the the New York Statute of 1700, the English Statute of 1731, and the Massachusetts Statute of 1784. NOT in Vattel.
REGARDLESS, even if one swallowed the reconstructivist 1797 translation of Vattel ("The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"), such would not preclude of any nation a right, whether by statute or otherwise, to extend such definition to a wider circle. Which, under English law and the Colonists' adoption of it, HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE by the Americans. See the 1700 Statute of New York and the 1784 Statute of Massachusetts.
BOTTOM LINE: Trump and his supporters played, and got away with, a dirty game of mudslinging and tarnish laying. Right out of the pages of Alinsky. No one beats Trump for slinging the mud or confounding the foolish and the bitter.
FROM WHERE DID THE TERMINOLOGY "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" ORIGINATE?
****************
Given that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the French, was it in the English translations available to the framers of the US Constitution? The answer is, “no”. The first English translation ... in 1760 follows:
And the first American Edition (1787) issued the year of the Constitutional Convention ... does not have “natural born citizen”.
Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.
[MY COMMENTS: Word for word, this does NOT necessarily translate into "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
In French, "Citoyen" means citizen. "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens" would, in English, give, "[T]he natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens."
While this may mean that the indigenous are those born in the country of parents who are citizens, it does not necessarily mean that ONLY the indigenous can be considered as natural born citizens!
Moreover, it does not, grammatically, mean that both parents, including the mother, must have been citizens.
Moreover, "parens" does not necessarily always translate to "parents."
When the Constitution was drafted in 1787, France was still a monarchy. As much as Britain, France's citizens were still "subjects" -- as much or more so than Britain (which had a bill of rights).
ONLY AFTER France became a republic and the U.S had won its War of Independence did translators find it convenient to translate "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens" as if it had all along meant "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
But for those after effects, there was no necessary one-on-one translation to such effect. The notion that the American usage of "natural born citizen" was derived from Vattel has become a contrivance of convenience. Whatever edition or translation the Founders may have had in 1787, it did not directly avail the formulazation, "natural born citizen."]
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- So I ask, how can de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” define a term that it doesn’t even contain (except in translations [in 1797] a decade after the Constitution was ratified)? If the framers wanted to refer to de Vattel, then they surely would have used his words from the English translation they had, but “natives or indegenes” is not in Article II of the Constitution.
****************
Quoting from article and comments at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizensThose words, however, are quoted from a translation of de Vattel that first appeared in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution’s ratification.
Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.For those who don’t speak French, the word “citizen” (Citoyen).
Given that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the French, was it in the English translations available to the framers of the US Constitution? The answer is, “no”. The first English translation ... in 1760 follows:
And the first American Edition (1787) issued the year of the Constitutional Convention also does not have “natural born citizen”.
So I ask, how can de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” define a term that it doesn’t even contain (except in translations [in 1797] a decade after the Constitution was ratified)? If the framers wanted to refer to de Vattel, then they surely would have used his words from the English translation they had, but “natives or indegenes” is not in Article II of the Constitution.
[It was not until 1797 that there was published] this passage ... of which is The Law of Nations:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
************
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- De Vattel defined “Les Naturels ou indigènes”, not “natural born citizens”.
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- If you think, for example, the phrase “natural-born citizen” in the Constitution originated with John Jay, do you think he read de Vattel in the French or in the English (if he read it at all)? According to The Founding Fathers and the French Language, by Paul M. Spurlin � 1976 National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, John Jay “understood and spoke French, with great difficulty.”
The courts have already decided (Smith v. Alabama) that the Constitution is written in the language of English common Law:
The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465.Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- Why did they say “natural born” instead of “native born”? Probably because they were thinking of British common law and it’s phrase “natural born subject”.
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- Let anyone show me a colonial or state law that only grants citizenship to the children of citizens! The invitation is open. I’m waiting.
******
Quote from "BlackLion" -- William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain."
Blackstone explicitly grounds natural-born status on location (jus soli), not parentage, except when the child is born abroad. The notion that both parents have to be citizens is false. All children born on American soil are natural-born subjects or citizens.
Quote from "Bob" -- "[I]t is also clear from the majority’s application of English common law that if Wong Kim Ark was a [14th Amendment] citizen, he was also a natural-born citizen, as he wasn’t a naturalized citizen."
Quote from "dunstvangeet" -- [W]hy would they [the Framers] not explicitly define “Natural Born” in the constitution, when they knew that the Blackstone Definition would be more widely known?
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- US V. Wong is the most cited case by courts in related immigration cases (including PERKINS V. ELG, 307 US 325, MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA, 291 US 82, ZARTARIAN V. BILLINGS, 204 US 170, CHIN BAK KAN V. UNITED STATES, 186 US 193, UNITED STATES V. SING TUCK OR DO, 194 US 161, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK v. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI) INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 536 U.S. 88, WEEDIN V. CHIN BOW, 274 US 657, ROGERS V. BELLEI, 401 US 815, TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 US 33, KWOCK JAN FAT V. WHITE, 253 US 454, AFROYIM V. RUSK, 387 US 253, HENNESSY V. RICHARDSON DRUG CO., 189 US 25, THE SAO VICENTE, 260 US 151, MONTANA V. KENNEDY, 366 US 308, TILLMAN V. WHEATON-HAVEN RECREATION ASSN., INC., 410 US 431, SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 US 437, MICHIGAN V. MICHIGAN TRUST CO., 286 US 334, PEREZ V. BROWNELL, 356 US 44, MACKENZIE V. HARE, 239 US 299, etc. just to mention some of the Supreme Court cases, not to mention those from the lower courts).
Quote from "mrlqban" -- [I]ndigenous in English or indigènes in French are synonym of natives no matter what language you use.
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- Where did John Jay get the term natural born citizen?
I know of no historical reference that directly tells us the answer. He did not get it from the English translation of The Law of Nations, because the phrase wasn’t there until years later. I’m pretty sure that I know where it came from, though.
The Naturalization Acts of New York from 1770 used the phrase “natural born subject” such as in the following:
BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by his Honor the Lieutenant Governor the Council and the General Assembly and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same that the before mentioned several Persons and each and every of them shall be and hereby are declared to be naturalized to all Intents Constructions and purposes whatsoever and from henceforth and at all Times hereafter shall be entitled to have and enjoy all the Rights Liberties Privileges and Advantages which his Majesty’s Natural born Subjects in this Colony have and enjoy or ought to have and enjoy as fully to all Intents and purposes whatsoever as if all and every of them had been born within this Colony.a few years later after the Revolution we see similar language in a naturalization act of Massachusetts (1784):
“…thereupon, and thereafter taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”It seems very likely that when the Colonies became States, and subjects became citizens, the form of the naturalization acts changed, replacing “subject” by “citizen”. It’s certain that the British Colonial language came from British common law. If indeed the States just substituted citizen for subject, then it is pretty certain that they retained the common law meaning. Jay, a lawyer, would have been familiar with the acts’ language. Lacking any other likely candidate, I think this is where Jay got the phrase.
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- It is not that Americans didn’t have English translations of The Law of Nations; they did. The point is that those translations didn’t say “natural born citizen.”
Prior to 1797, all English translations of The Law of Nations, including the 1787 American Edition all said “natives or indegenes” (italics in the original). It was not until the 1797 edition that the new translation used the words “natives or natural born citizens.”
Quote from "G" -- No evidence exists that Vattel had anything to do with citizenship issues.
It has repeatedly been noted that Vattel was referenced in terms of international commerce by the Founders. There is no dispute or controversy on that. Nor is that relevant to the issues of citizenship.
Quote from "Greg" -- The Founders didn’t once say to themselves, “maybe we should use ‘indigenes,’ like Vattel did, if that’s what we mean?”
They didn’t once say, “Maybe if we use the same phrase, it will cause confusion?”
They didn’t once write down, “We mean ‘natural born citizen’ to be completely different from ‘natural born subject.’ We know it might cause confusion, but we really like that Vattel guy, and we’re sure that if he was translated right, he would have written it this way.”
Quote from "Greg" -- By 1803, St. George Tucker was writing that Natural Born Citizen meant the same as Natural Born Subject – born here without regard to parentage. By 1829, William Rawle wrote, “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
Quote from "Rickey" -- “Debate on the Constitution,” Library of America, two volumes, 2389 pages.
Number of references to Blackstone: 22
Number of references to Vattel: ZERO
Number of references to the common law: 30
Number of references to natural law: ZERO
On p. 353 Roger Mason states that the common law was “adopted by the respective acts forming the constitutions of the several states.”
On p. 356, the Virginia Independent Chronicle opines that if the Constitution were to be ratified “The people have every security of enjoying the benefits of the common law.”
P. 364, from The Norfolk and Portsmouth Journal: “So far as the people are now entitled to the benefit of the common law, they certaily will have a right to enjoy it under the new constitution…The principles of the common law, as they now apply, must surely always hereafter apply.”
Alexander Hamilton, discussing the role of the Supreme Court (p. 491); “The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court will extend to causes determinable in different modes, some in the course of the COMMON LAW, and others in the course of the CIVIL LAW.” (CAPS in the original)
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- [Re:] A legitimate child, wherever born, is a member of the nation of which its father at the time of birth was a member.” Field’s International Code, page 132; Morse page 17.
Context is really important and I think the little citation you left us is so badly out of context as to constitute fraud if intended to say that Field supports the nObama notion of two citizen parental requirement, because Field footnoted that section, saying:
This is the law in most European States [citation deleted] but not in England or in the United States.and
http://books.google.com/books?id=cFLiAAAAMAAJ
And it has been held in the United States that the national character of the parent is of no importance even in the case of a child born within the territory to a parent who is not and has not taken any step towards becoming naturalized there and who removes the child while an infant. [Citing Lynch v Clarke]Field also cites Ludlam v Ludlam that has a different view, and notes his view on the limitations on the application of Lynch v Clarke (limitations that future federal courts would not recognize).
This is why this web site exists, to prevent fraud.
*********************
(SEE ALSO DEBUNKING OBAMA CONSPIRACY THEORIES -- http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/)
(NOTE: On October 5, 1789, George Washington, after having become President on April 30, 1789, more than 2 years after the Constitution had been completed on September 17, 1787, more than 15 months after Virginia had ratified it on June 26, 1788, George Washington checked out "The Law of Nations" by Emer de Vattel from the New York Society Library. It was returned 221 years later. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-library-washington-idUSTRE64J4EG20100520.
Notwithstanding claims by Birthers, since Washington did not check the book out until considerably after the Constitution had been drafted, there is nothing to indicate he would have referred to it at the time the terminology "natural born citizen" was specified as a prerequisite to be eligible to become President. Moreover, the terminology "natural born citizen" was not in that edition.)
*********************
Today, Britain is still a Constitutional Monarchy, as it was in 1776. If being a monarchy precluded the subjects of Britain of 1776 from being citizens, then the Britain of today would not have citizens. But it does! Indeed, Citizenship is a compulsory subject of the National Curriculum in state schools in England! Moreover, the France of 1776 had subjects who were citizens. The French Revolution was not until 1789, after the Constitution had been drafted in 1787. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law. French nationality and citizenship were concepts that existed even before the French Revolution.
Being a natural born subject of Britain with rights to vote, to participate civically, and with rights protected under a bill of rights, as Britain had, is not so fundamentally different from being a natural born citizen of America under its bill of rights. Indeed, much of the reason for the revolution had to do with colonists' complaints that they were not treated equally with the British of the homeland. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England: After the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, and the subsequent Glorious Revolution of 1688, the supremacy of Parliament was a settled principle and all future English and later British sovereigns were restricted to the role of constitutional monarchs with limited executive authority.
It's birther folly to claim one cannot be a natural born citizen unless one is free of all claims of allegiance made by or to foreign powers, Here's an example to show why: Around 1812, England was impressing Americans found on the high seas into its naval service, especially if the features of such Americans appeared similar to that of English stock. England claimed these impressed sailors' fathers, or their fathers, had been from England and, "once an Englishman, always an Englishman." Thus, England was claiming dual allegiance owed to it from persons who had been born in the U.S. --- regardless that both their parents had been American citizens. Given that no nation can preclude how another or rogue nation may reason its way to claim allegiance, there can be no guarantee that a rogue nation will not claim allegiance merely because the status of a person was that of being born elsewhere of fully naturalized parents. To posit that an American cannot be eligible to become President in every case where another nation, under its laws, may claim allegiance is logically unsound to the very ideas of citizenship and nation.
***********************************
Some nations do not recognize any right to renounce their citizenship. Thus, some make claims to allegiance, potentially in perpetuity.
************************************
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship:
"There is no international convention which determines the nationality or citizen status of a person, which is defined exclusively by national laws, which vary and can be inconsistent with each other.
....
Most countries that permit dual citizenship still may not recognize the other citizenship of its nationals within its own territory, for example in relation to entry into the country, national service, duty to vote, etc
....
Many states did not recognize the right of their citizens to renounce their citizenship without permission, with the feudal theory of perpetual allegiance to the sovereign still common.
....
In the aftermath of the 1867 Fenian Rising, Irish-Americans who had gone to Ireland to participate in the uprising and were caught were charged with treason, as the British authorities considered them to be British subjects. This outraged many Irish-Americans, to which the British responded by pointing out that, just like British law, American law also recognized perpetual allegiance.
....
[T]he theory of perpetual allegiance largely fell out of favor with governments during the late 19th century. [My comment: This was long after the Framers wrote the clause regarding natural born citizens.]
....
At the 1930 League of Nations Codification Conference, an attempt was made to codify nationality rules into a universal worldwide treaty, the 1930 Hague Convention, whose chief aims would be to completely abolish both statelessness and dual citizenship. It proposed laws that would have reduced both, but in the end was ratified by only twenty nations.
....
The number of states allowing multiple citizenship further increased after a treaty in Europe requiring signatories to limit dual citizenship lapsed in the 1990s, and countries with high emigration rates began permitting it to maintain links with their respective diasporas.
....
Today, the citizenship laws of most countries are based on jus sanguinis. In many cases, this basis for citizenship also extends to children born outside the country, and sometimes even when the parent has lost citizenship.
....
British citizens naturalized in the United States remain British citizens in the eyes of the British government even after they renounce British allegiance to the satisfaction of United States authorities.
....
Irish nationality law applies to "the island of Ireland", which extends citizenship to Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, anyone born in Northern Ireland who meets the requirements for being an Irish citizen through birth on the "island of Ireland" (or a child born outside Ireland but with a qualifying parent) can exercise rights accorded only to Irish citizens, including that of traveling under an Irish passport.
....
[A] child born in the United States to Norwegian parents automatically has dual citizenship with the United States and Norway although Norway usually restricts or forbids dual citizenship.
....
Despite wide acceptance of dual citizenship, industrialized countries now try to protect themselves from birth tourism and uncontrollable immigration waves, so only Canada and the United States still grant unconditional birthright citizenship (even for children of illegal immigrants).
....
[Presently] In Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK, a child born there is regarded as a citizen only if at least one parent is either a citizen or a legal permanent resident who has lived there for several years.
....
The United States is a "civic" nation and not an "ethnic" nation. American citizenship is not based on belonging to a particular ethnicity, but on political loyalty to American democracy and values. Regimes based on ethnicity, which support the doctrine of perpetual allegiance as one is always a member of the ethnic nation, are not concerned with assimilating non-ethnics since they can never become true citizens. In contrast, the essence of a civic nation makes it imperative that immigrants assimilate into the greater whole as there is not an "ethnic" cohesiveness uniting the populace.
..
[in the U.S.] possession or use of a foreign passport is a condition disqualifying one from security clearance and "is not mitigated by reasons of personal convenience, safety, requirements of foreign law, or the identity of the foreign country" as is explicitly clarified in a Department of Defense policy memorandum which defines a guideline requiring that "any clearance be denied or revoked unless the applicant surrenders the foreign passport or obtains official permission for its use from the appropriate agency of the United States Government".
....
Stéphane Dion, former head of the Liberal Party of Canada and the previous leader of the official opposition, holds dual citizenship with France as a result of his mother's nationality; Dion nonetheless indicated a willingness to renounce French citizenship if a significant number of Canadians viewed it negatively.
******************
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law_in_the_American_Colonies:
English common law, under principles of jus sanguinis, viewed English persons and their children in the colonies as full subjects of the king.
The strongest legal bonds between England and the American colonies lay in the colonial charters, many of which professed alien residents in the colonies would eventually become “Our Loving subjects and live under Our Allegiance.
The first general naturalization law, providing a simple administrative process for obtaining naturalization appeared when Parliament passed Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act 1708.
The Plantation Act 1740 supplanted the private naturalization process in which aliens in the colonies had to travel to London to appeal for subjectship on a costly, case-by-case basis.
[T]he colonies administered the 1740 Act with varying degrees of faithfulness.
[M]any colonies issued their own naturalization policies to rival those of Parliament, until that practice was prohibited in 1773.
Under the 1701 Act of Settlement, Britain barred naturalized subjects from entering high political office.
[T]he colonies persisted in drafting local laws to fulfill their growing demand for new immigrants until those powers were completely proscribed in 1773.
South Carolina attracted alien applicants through naturalization laws that granted them the rights of natural-born Englishmen while prohibiting the collection of monies for debts contracted prior to the applicant coming to the colony.
Pennsylvania in 1742 provided its own general law for naturalization that gave full rights to aliens who had resided in the colony for less than the seven years required in the 1740 Parliamentary Act.[42] Parliament later invalidated Pennsylvania's general naturalization law, after which the state, motivated by similar expansionary aims as New York, turned to extensive use of private acts to accomplish its naturalizations.[43] Further, New York and Pennsylvania both exempted persons with conscientious scruples against oaths, which included Quakers, from the requirement to swear allegiance during naturalization.
The American colonists were generally in favor of foreign immigrants, as their contributions to the welfare of the colonies were clear and highly valued.
Following the American Revolution, under the Articles of Confederation each colony could independently pass its own naturalization laws, yet each state’s authority to naturalize alien residents conferred the same rights of citizenship within the colonies under the principle of comity.[48] As a result, the new American states produced naturalization laws of varying procedures and requirements. Common among them, however, were certain assumptions, including affirming allegiance to an authority and a mandatory period of physical residence prior to obtaining the right of citizenship.[49]
Ultimately, the United States Constitution, which did not address naturalization head on but intended to right the general lack of legal uniformity seen under the Articles of Confederation,[50] empowered Congress to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization” within Article I, section 8, clause 4, permitting the development of United States nationality law at the federal level.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_Act_1740:
Despite being a British law, the Plantation Act "was the model upon which the first U.S. naturalization act, with respect to time, oath of allegiance, process of swearing before a judge, and the like, was clearly based."
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship:
Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a member of a country.
Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English.
In the Roman Empire, citizenship expanded from small-scale communities to the entire empire. Romans realized that granting citizenship to people from all over the empire legitimized Roman rule over conquered areas. Roman citizenship was no longer a status of political agency; it had been reduced to a judicial safeguard and the expression of rule and law.
A citizen came to be understood as a person "free to act by law, free to ask and expect the law's protection, a citizen of such and such a legal community, of such and such a legal standing in that community".[17] Citizenship meant having rights to have possessions, immunities, expectations, which were "available in many kinds and degrees, available or unavailable to many kinds of person for many kinds of reason".[17] And the law, itself, was a kind of bond uniting people.[18] Roman citizenship was more impersonal, universal, multiform, having different degrees and applications.
[P]olitical upheavals and reforms, beginning most prominently with the French Revolution, abolished privileges and created an egalitarian concept of citizenship.
During the Renaissance, people transitioned from being subjects of a king or queen to being citizens of a city and later to a nation.[19]:p.161 Each city had its own law, courts, and independent administration.[20] And being a citizen often meant being subject to the city's law in addition to having power in some instances to help choose officials.
Citizenship became an idealized, almost abstract, concept,[9] and did not signify a submissive relation with a lord or count, but rather indicated the bond between a person and the state in the rather abstract sense of having rights and duties.
Modern citizenship is much more passive; action is delegated to others; citizenship is often a constraint on acting, not an impetus to act.[8] Nevertheless, citizens are usually aware of their obligations to authorities, and are aware that these bonds often limit what they can do.
Citizenship status, under social contract theory, carries with it both rights and duties. In this sense, citizenship was described as "a bundle of rights -- primarily, political participation in the life of the community, the right to vote, and the right to receive certain protection from the community, as well as obligations."
The relation of citizenship has never been fixed or static, but constantly changes within each society. While citizenship has varied considerably throughout history, and within societies over time, there are some common elements but they vary considerably as well. As a bond, citizenship extends beyond basic kinship ties to unite people of different genetic backgrounds. It usually signifies membership in a political body. It is often based on, or was a result of, some form of military service or expectation of future service. It usually involves some form of political participation, but this can vary from token acts to active service in government. Citizenship is a status in society. It is an ideal state as well. It generally describes a person with legal rights within a given political order. It almost always has an element of exclusion, meaning that some people are not citizens, and that this distinction can sometimes be very important, or not important, depending on a particular society. Citizenship as a concept is generally hard to isolate intellectually and compare with related political notions, since it relates to many other aspects of society such as the family, military service, the individual, freedom, religion, ideas of right and wrong, ethnicity, and patterns for how a person should behave in society.[19] When there are many different groups within a nation, citizenship may be the only real bond which unites everybody as equals without discrimination—it is a "broad bond" linking "a person with the state" and gives people a universal identity as a legal member of a specific nation.
Citizenship is a compulsory subject of the National Curriculum in state schools in England.
*************************
Review various of the Massachusetts Naturalization Acts.
Massachusetts Naturalization Acts
[Before drafting began on the new Constitution]
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
http://tinyurl.com/b9q2blr
February, 1786, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
http://tinyurl.com/a9ceb8b
July, 1786, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
http://tinyurl.com/bh9jdqc
March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
[After drafting began on the new Constitution]
http://tinyurl.com/b6yzhd9
May, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Edward Wyer and Others, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/apcrvfj
October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
http://tinyurl.com/axpogxw
November, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/acjx5r2
June, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/acroa8g
November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
http://tinyurl.com/a4hsc8s
February, 1789, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/b5jcnfm
June, 1789, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/ax6434g
March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/bfbpqg3
March, 1791, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/b2uoexq
***************************
The U.S. did not agree that the British should be able to impress ANY American citizen who renounced loyalty to Britain -- REGARDLESS of whether Britain wanted by legislation to pretend a superior claim.
There is a difference between legislation that allows one to claim natural born citizenship rights at birth versus legislation that presumes to FORCE one to remain a citizen even after allegiance-in-fact has changed. The U.S. could not force Britain to stop enacting or enforcing chauvenistic laws. But the U.S. could increase precautions to reduce the chance that they would be applied. Once Americans renounced allegiance, the U.S. did NOT feel British impressment was legitimate.
THAT was the reason for the War of 1812. The reason the U.S. would have avoided using some sailors who were of British ancestry would have been less because the U.S. felt British claims were legitimate than because the U.S. felt such claims were illigitimate once allegiance had changed. Especially given the Revolutionary War.
Again, the U.S. cannot unilaterally preclude another nation from enacting laws that conflict with ours. To try to do so would be to seek some kind of non-existent "natural unicorn law" that unicornists believe should apply "naturally" to all nations in all cases. However, the U.S. has never been so silly as to want to be a land enthralled to unicorn theorists. Or to try to force square pegs in round holes. *No doubt, to the end of time, Birthers will still be trying to square the circle in reference to some unicorn idea of "natural law."
There abides a Source of right and wrong. But it is in the Consciousness of the Godhead. NOT in any unchanging pagan idea of "natural law." That there abides right and wrong is unchanging. But how it relates entails a feedback relationship with each situation and each nation. Ever since the story of Prince Arjuna and his guide and charioteer Lord Krishna about one's duty to to fight the Dharma Yudhha between Pandavas and Kauravas, it has often been "right" that nations should fight. To presume "natural law" can lead away from such necessity is juvey. What may tend more to lead away from such necessity is assimilation of faith in guidance from the Godhead. Not pagan faith in non-existent "natural law." Gaia does NOT write laws for all time for mankind.
While our law regarding natural born citizenship was largely inherited from the British, our law regarding a right to change allegiance had changed. THAT was pursuant to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War.
********************
*LYNCH V. CLARKE: See New York Court of Chancery case of Lynch v. Clarke. http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/05/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-i-from-alexander-hamilton-to-lynch-v-clarke/:
The court held: "It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States."
"[T]he common law prevailed as a system of jurisprudence, in all the thirteen states which then constituted the nation…Both the former, and the present constitutions of this state declared, in effect, that the common law was the basis of the law in this state."
"[T]he United States Constitution and our national institutions were formed on the basis of the common law."
"The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written], of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."
"To find an authority in Vattel, we must be sure to find the proposition which is intended by the author to meet the case. Hence the error of the complainant’s counsel. They cite Sec. 212 [of Vattel], which is a definition in the limited and strictest sense of ” natives and citizens,” the smallest possible circle of that class. He does not define all who compose the citizens of a country, but when we read Sec. 215, we have the identical authority for the question at issue in this discussion ; which is, in the language of the author, ” whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens.” ”The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.” ” By the law of nature, children follow the condition of the father; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.” “But civil and political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.” Now this is the authority, and the civil and political laws of England and the United States have decided that such children are citizens, and owe allegiance to the government. ”These regulations must be followed,” says Mr. Vattel; for that is the public law in those countries, and that is his reason."
Bottom line: Under British and American usage, status as a natural born citizen was determined by, among other things, common law and statutory law. Not by unicorn law. Even Vattel recognized that, ”The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.”
*******************
**FROM WHERE DID THE TERMINOLOGY "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" ORIGINATE?
Quoting from article and comments at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
Those words, however, are quoted from a translation of de Vattel that first appeared in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution’s ratification.
Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.
[MY NOTE: Even for any Founders who spoke or wrote French, this language does NOT translate precisely to "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Rather, if anything, it translates more closely to, "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents [or close relations] who are citizens." It does not necessarily distinguish between an idea of aborigines and an idea of natural born citizens. Nor does it precisely use a terminology of "natural born citizen." Nor does it necessarily specify that a parent in the English sense is required, much less both parents. Some people even say that "parens," in French, encompasses close blood and marriage relatives, not just parents. So the original work does not give a one-on-one translation to say, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Rather, such translation, in English, did not appear until AFTER the American Revolution and AFTER the Constitution had been drafted. The formulation in the English translation of Vattel may well have been influenced by the American Constitution, but the American Constitution could NOT have been influenced by the formulation because it had not yet been published when the Constitution was drafted!
Again as quoted below, "Prior to 1797, all English translations of The Law of Nations, including the 1787 American Edition all said “natives or indegenes”. It was not until the 1797 edition that the new translation used the words “natives or natural born citizens." Simply put, the 1797 verbiage was never the only way to translate the original.]
[Now, back to quoting.]
For those who don’t speak French, the word “citizen” (Citoyen).
Given that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the French, was it in the English translations available to the framers of the US Constitution? The answer is, “no”. The first English translation ... in 1760 follows:
And the first American Edition (1787) issued the year of the Constitutional Convention also does not have “natural born citizen”.
So I ask, how can de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” define a term that it doesn’t even contain (except in translations [in 1797] a decade after the Constitution was ratified)? If the framers wanted to refer to de Vattel, then they surely would have used his words from the English translation they had, but “natives or indegenes” is not in Article II of the Constitution.
[It was not until 1797 that there was published] this passage ... of which is The Law of Nations:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
************
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- De Vattel defined “Les Naturels ou indigènes”, not “natural born citizens”.
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- If you think, for example, the phrase
“natural-born citizen” in the Constitution originated with John Jay, do you think he read de Vattel in the French or in the English (if he read it at all)? According to The Founding Fathers and the French Language, by Paul M. Spurlin � 1976 National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, John Jay “understood and spoke French, with great difficulty.”
The courts have already decided (Smith v. Alabama) that the Constitution is written in the language of English common Law:
The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465.
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- Why did they say “natural born” instead of “native born”? Probably because they were thinking of British common law and it’s phrase “natural born subject”.
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- Let anyone show me a colonial or state law that only grants citizenship to the children of citizens! The invitation is open. I’m waiting.
******
Quote from "BlackLion" -- William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain."
Blackstone explicitly grounds natural-born status on location (jus soli), not parentage, except when the child is born abroad. The notion that both parents have to be citizens is false. All children born on American soil are natural-born subjects or citizens.
Quote from "Bob" -- "[I]t is also clear from the majority’s application of English common law that if Wong Kim Ark was a [14th Amendment] citizen, he was also a natural-born citizen, as he wasn’t a naturalized citizen."
Quote from "dunstvangeet" -- [W]hy would they [the Framers] not explicitly define “Natural Born” in the constitution, when they knew that the Blackstone Definition would be more widely known?
Quote from "mrlqban" -- [I]ndigenous in English or indigènes in French are synonym of natives no matter what language you use.
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- Where did John Jay get the term natural born citizen?
I know of no historical reference that directly tells us the answer. He did not get it from the English translation of The Law of Nations, because the phrase wasn’t there until years later. I’m pretty sure that I know where it came from, though.
The Naturalization Acts of New York from 1770 used the phrase “natural born subject” such as in the following:
BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by his Honor the Lieutenant Governor the Council and the General Assembly and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same that the before mentioned several Persons and each and every of them shall be and hereby are declared to be naturalized to all Intents Constructions and purposes whatsoever and from henceforth and at all Times hereafter shall be entitled to have and enjoy all the Rights Liberties Privileges and Advantages which his Majesty’s Natural born Subjects in this Colony have and enjoy or ought to have and enjoy as fully to all Intents and purposes whatsoever as if all and every of them had been born within this Colony.
A few years later after the Revolution we see similar language in a naturalization act of Massachusetts (1784): “…thereupon, and thereafter taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
It seems very likely that when the Colonies became States, and subjects became citizens, the form of the naturalization acts changed, replacing “subject” by “citizen”. [TO INTERJECT MY NOTE: In 1770, New York was a Colony, and its statute referrred to natural born subject. In 1784, Massachusetts was a State, and its statute referred to natural born citizen. Before Vattel was translated into the 1797 edition! IOW, the Americans were referring to the terminology "natural born citizen" before such language was published in any edition by Vattel, and before such language was recommended by Jay to the Constitutional Convention of 1787!] It’s certain that the British Colonial language came from British common law. If indeed the States just substituted citizen for subject, then it is pretty certain that they retained the common law meaning. Jay, a lawyer, would have been familiar with the acts’ language. Lacking any other likely candidate, I think this is where Jay got the phrase.
Prior to 1797, all English translations of The Law of Nations, including the 1787 American Edition all said “natives or indegenes”. It was not until the 1797 edition that the new translation used the words “natives or natural born citizens.”
Quote from "Greg" -- By 1803, St. George Tucker was writing that Natural Born Citizen meant the same as Natural Born Subject – born here without regard to parentage. By 1829, William Rawle wrote, “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment