1795
Naturalization Act “citizen”
vs.
1790
Naturalization Act “natural born Citizen”
This post is modified from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on April 15, 2014 at 3:53 PM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=9
<<>>
ajtelles said...
You're funny h2o...
... is there something in the water?
On April 15, 2014 at 10:26 AM, h20oflife said -
>> Who among you who pretends to have a brain
>> can sit on your high horse and proclaim
>> like a fool that that first Congress,
>> and President Washington as well,
>> were a bunch of ignorant idiots
>> for failing to understand
>> what you so clearly "understand"
>> to be "true"?"
>> Either those most admirable and intelligent of men were idiots
>> or else you are idiots.
>> There are no other options folks.
>> Who cares to explain why they were such idiots?
>> Why and how did they go so "wrong"?
>> EXPLAIN!!! -or else repent from your errant heresy.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hey, h2o, it is YOU who is calling the 3rd Congress "idiots" because it is YOU who does not accept the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen' designation that repealed and replaced the 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen" designation.
Hey, h2o, what is YOUR source for declaring ipso facto that the wise 1795 3rd Congress members were "idiots" for correcting their OWN unintentional error that some of them made as members of the 1790 1st Congress?
[...snip]
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
I of II
Stranger/Adrien Nash/h2ooflife’s attack on the Third Congress and President George Washington and its removal of “natural born citizen” and replacing it with “citizen of the United States” has no basis in reality or law.
In case Mr. Nash missed it, the Third Congress in making that change through the Naturalization Act of 1795 was led by then-representative James Madison (the “Father of the Constitution”), who headed the Congressional committee that studied the matter and made the surgical change from “natural born citizen” (existing in the Naturalization Act of 1790) to “citizen of the United States” (in the Naturalization Act of 1795). The new law was approved by President George Washington. Before approving this new law, Congress, Madison, and Washington knew quite well that Article II said that only natural born citizens were eligible to be future Presidents and Commanders in Chief.
After the 1795 Act, Congress continued to make things harder for aliens. If you will read the whole Naturalization Act of 1802, you will note that Congress made it harder for aliens to become “citizens of the United States.” It now required, in additional to what the previous naturalization acts required, that aliens declare an intention to become a “citizen of the United States” at least three years prior to being admitted as such a citizen and that they renounced forever by oath of allegiance, fidelity, and any title of nobility to a foreign nation or prince, having to specifically name the foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; upon actual application to become a citizen they declare under oath to a competent court that they renounced forever all allegiance, fidelity, and any title of nobility to a foreign nation or prince, having to specifically name the foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; increased residency in the United States prior to admission as a citizen from 2 years to 5 years, with having to provide objective evidence of such residency; required that aliens expressly renounce all titles or orders of nobility in the court to which they made application for citizenship; and that any alien wanting to become a citizen of the United States not be a native citizen, denizen, or subject of any nation at war with the United States. The act also grandfathered those aliens who were residing in and under the jurisdiction the United States before January 29, 1795 so as to grant them the benefit of having to satisfy the less stringent 2-year residency standards of the Naturalization Act of 1795, but with having to satisfy the new requirement to renounce all foreign allegiance and titles of nobility. Finally, the Act also established a system whereby each adult “free white person” alien (minors through their parents or guardians) upon arriving to the United States and wanting to become a citizen thereof was now required to register with a competent court the date of his or her entry into the United States and obtain from the court a certificate evidencing his or her registration which certificate the alien was now required to exhibit to the court to which he or she made application to be naturalized as evidence of when the alien arrived in the United States.
After Congress addressed how alien adults were to become “citizens of the United States,” it moved on to their minor children. Critically important is the fact that Congress did not exclude from its treatment children that may have been born in the United States to alien parents. Rather, it made specific requirements regarding those exact children. This proves that early Congress did not view children born in the United States to alien parents as citizens, let alone as natural born citizens. Rather, it viewed them as alien born and in need of naturalization along with their adult alien parents.
Continued . . .
April 15, 2014 at 5:07 PM
-
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Congress continued the same language as contained in the Acts of 1790 and 1795 that
“the
children of persons duly naturalized . . . being under the age of
twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or
admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United
States be considered as citizens of the United States and the
children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United
States though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United
States be considered as citizens of the United States. . .”
So, as we can see, Congress continued to treat children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization just like their alien parents needed naturalization. For confirmation of this treatment, see the James McClure citizenship case of 1811 (the James Madison Administration explained under the Naturalization Act of 1802, children born in the United States after July 4, 1776 to alien parents were alien born and in need of naturalization).
It also now said that children of U.S. citizens “though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” were to be considered only as “citizens of the United States,” and not as “natural born citizens.” This change is entirely consistent with Congress becoming stricter with how it gave to aliens the right to become a “citizen of the United States.”
The Naturalization Act of 1795 by the Third Congress and those of 1790 and 1802 are incontrovertible evidence that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers viewed children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization (so much for Jack Maskell’s thesis). They also show that Congress viewed children born out of the jurisdiction of the United States to U.S. citizen parents also as needing naturalization which Congress provide through the act which made those children “citizen of the United States” at birth. (again, so much for Jack Maskell’s thesis). These acts also convincingly demonstrate that the early Congress, many of whom were Founders and Framers, defined a natural born citizen as a child born in the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This child was the only child who Congress did not seek to naturalize through its naturalization acts. No naturalization was needed of that child because that child was a natural born citizen (and again, so much for Jack Maskell’s thesis).
April 15, 2014 at 5:08 PM
- ajtelles said...
Mario, the authors of the 1790 and the 1795 Naturalization Acts wrote words that were to be understood as THEY intended their words to be understood by their contemporaries AND their posterity, including you, me, h2ooflife, aka h2o, and Obama-birthers S...fast and Unknown and Dr. Conspiracy, and et alii.
An example of their understandable words being understood as THEY intended their common sense original intent words to be understood is your own explication of their words on April 15, 2014 at 5:07 PM.
However, your planting of "explication de texte" seed thoughts for h2o and Obama-birthrs seems to be having the same effect as if you were intentionally doing "fallow ground" preparation, i.e., as if you were plowing land without seeding it afterward.
For those who do not have access to a dictionary while reading this, here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition.
explication de texte ... n.
A method of literary criticism in which aspects of a written work are analyzed in order to understand its structure and meanings." In simple "what does THAT mean" terms, the dictionary definition adds, "the explanation of (a) text.
So, Mario, since you definitely are planting "explication de texte" seed thoughts, maybe the problem is the ground itself.
However, Mario's explination should be VERY easy to understand, even for h2ooflife.
>> The Naturalization Act of 1795 by the Third Congress and those of 1790 and 1802
>> are incontrovertible evidence that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers
>> viewed children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization
>> (so much for Jack Maskell’s thesis).
>> They also show that Congress viewed children born out of the jurisdiction of the United States
>> to U.S. citizen parents also as needing naturalization
>> which Congress provide through the act which made those children “citizen of the United States” at birth.
>> (again, so much for Jack Maskell’s thesis).
>> These acts also convincingly demonstrate that the early Congress,
>> many of whom were Founders and Framers,
>> defined a natural born citizen as
>> a child born in the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
>> This child was the only child who Congress did not seek to naturalize through its naturalization acts.
>> No naturalization was needed of that child
>> because that child was a natural born citizen
>> (and again, so much for Jack Maskell’s thesis).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So, h2ooflife, Obama-birthers and et alii, what is NOT clear to you about the third Congresses 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” designation that corrected the error of the first Congresses 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born Citizen” designation?
Art
April 15, 2014 at 10:39 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment