John Jay and Unity of Singular U.S. Citizenship and Allegiance

John Jay and Unity of Singular U.S. Citizenship and Allegiance

&

John Jay's “citizen of them all—wish" May 31, 1781

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog on June 19, 2014 at 12:23 AM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=13

<<>>

Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance

Here is a brief letter from John Jay to a person called Del Campo about an Englishman named Mr. Vaughan who wanted to become a U.S. naturalized citizen, and who asked Jay, who was in Madrid, Spain in 17871, prior to the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris by John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, to administer the oath of allegiance to the United States.

This indicates that in the late 1781, six years before the adoption of the September 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution, the common law understanding of John Jay about the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" was that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child.

The father was an Englishman, the mother was an American, and their son Mr. Vaughn was considered by Jay to be ONLY an Englishman who did not have dual citizenship. He was an Englishman, the son of an Englishman father, subject to the English monarch, and the son of an American citizen mother.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

>> http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2328&layout=html


JAY TO DEL CAMPO
Madrid, November 3, 1781.


Sir:

I have received the letter you did me the honour to write on the 2d instant.

As Mr. [John] Vaughan was favored last spring at Aranjuez with a passport from his Excellency the Count de Florida to go to and reside at Toledo, I omitted to enumerate in my last the circumstances requested in your letter.

The gentleman’s father is an Englishman, his mother is an American; he himself was born I think in England; he means to become a citizen of and to settle in one of the United States, and is by profession a merchant. He has been a considerable time in France learning the language and acquainting himself with the commerce of that country. From thence he came last spring to Spain, for the same purposes; he brought with him a warm recommendation from Dr. Franklin; he spent the summer at Toledo learning the Spanish language; he visited Il de fonso while the Court was last there, and he is now desirous of going to Cadiz that he may during the winter form proper commercial connections there, and in the spring embark for North America. He has offered to take an oath of allegiance to the United States before me. I advised him to postpone it until he arrived there, as well because I thought it more proper in itself as because I did not conceive myself authorized to administer it.

This is a short but very candid account of what I know of this gentleman. I may indeed add that in my opinion he possesses a good share of understanding and much useful knowledge. I for my part confide in the sincerity of his professions, and shall accordingly do him good office in America by recommending him to my friends there.

Be pleased to accept my thanks for your polite attention. I have the honour to be, with great consideration and respect,

Your most obedient and most humble servant,

John Jay.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Even in 1781 my new best friend John Jay was affirming that ONLY the citizenship of the father determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child. In this case the son was a citizen of England, because, by marriage, the mother had the same British citizenship of her husband.

BOTH parents.

The "unity of citizenship and allegiance"—what a 1700s concept that is still applicable to the 2000s.

BOTH parents.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is Mario's comment on June 19, 2014 at 8:24 PM about Mr. Vaughan's singular British citizenship acquired when his mother, who was born with U.S. citizenship, married his British citizen father.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

I of II

Thank you for sharing with us such a great find. I have the following comments on that letter of John Jay, the father of the natural born citizen clause.

Jay’s letter to De Campo, Confidential Secretary to Florida Blanca at the Spanish Court, was written by Jay on November 3, 1781, before Congress passed its first naturalization act, the Naturalization Act of 1790. Jay’s letter goes to prove two things.

First, the letter confirms that at common law a child born out of the United States (John Vaughan was born in England) to an alien father (British) who married a U.S. citizen mother was neither a natural born citizen nor a citizen of the United States. I assume that Mr. Vaughan’s parents were married from the tone of Jay’s letter. The letter shows that central figures of the Founding era were following the maxim partus sequitur patrem (children follow the condition or citizenship of the “father,” which under the doctrine that wives took on the citizenship of their husbands meant “parents.”) Hence, under the common law, born out of the United States to a citizen mother and an alien father was not sufficient to be accepted as a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.

As you will recall, Jack Maskell and the Obots contend that for the Framers being born out of the United States to one citizen parent was sufficient to be not only a “citizen of the United States” at birth, but also an Article II natural born citizen for the sole reason that today under current naturalization Acts of Congress that child is considered a born citizen. But here Jay informs that under common law, at the time of the Founding such children were not even “citizens of the United States,” let alone natural born citizens. According to Jay, Mr. Vaughan was not only not a natural born citizen. He was also not a citizen at all and in need of naturalization after his birth. That is important information for those of us today who are looking to understand how the Framers defined a natural born citizen at the time they included the clause into the Constitution.

Congress abrogated the common law when it created more citizens of the United States through is naturalization acts. Under the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, that same child, born in England to an English father who married an American mother was also not a citizen of the United States, for the father and therefore both parents had to be U.S. citizens for the child to be a citizen of the United States. Also, the current naturalization acts upon which Maskell and the Obots rely (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 to 1409) and which did not exist at the time the Constitution was adopted and ratified provide textually that children who are born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents are “citizen of the United States” at birth. They do not state that they are “natural born citizens.” Hence, Jack Maskell and the Obots are wrong on all fronts and Senator Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.

Second, Jay’s letter is further evidence that the Framers required both parents to be citizens before a child could be accepted as a U.S. citizen. Not being born to U.S. citizen parents is probably the reason that Jay disqualified Mr. Vaughan as a citizen of the United States and in need of naturalization. With the common law requiring birth in the country, the other reason would have been that he was not born in the United States. Given his close contacts with various Founders and Framers who ended up serving in the First Congress, Jay could have anticipated how Congress was going to treat children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen “parents” “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” which the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 [sic, 1795] changed to “shall be considered as citizens

Continued . . .

II of II 

of the United States.” But Jay made no mention of such a possible change to the common law in his letter. Jay did not even given it a thought given that Vaughan was born to an alien father which also made his mother an alien. Given that Jay made no mention of Vaughan’s American mother as having any controlling effect or whether Vaughan had one or two U.S. citizen parents, we can see that early Congress required that both parents had to be citizens, and not just one. If both parents of a child born out of the United States had to be citizens for the child to be born a “citizen of the United States,” then, given that early Congress made no distinction between a child born in or out of the United States when the child was born to alien parents, surely they also had to be both citizens for that child to be born a natural born citizen. Jay’s letter goes to prove that being born to one citizen parent, unless it was the father who was a citizen and in which case upon marrying an alien woman also made her a U.S. citizen, was not accepted as the equivalent of born to “citizen parents.” On the other hand, born to a citizen father and an alien mother, given that the mother took on the citizenship of the husband, was tantamount to being born to citizen parents.

Again, the U.S. Supreme Court whenever it has defined a natural born citizen has always stated that the child be born to citizens “parents” (plural) at the time of birth. Both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) only foresaw scenarios in which both parents were either citizens or aliens. Prior to the Cable Act of 1922, parents were both citizens by both spouses being citizens prior to marriage or an alien woman marrying a U.S. citizen husband. After the Cable Act, alien women no longer became U.S. citizens upon marriage to a U.S. citizen husband. Rather, such alien adult women had to naturalize on their own prior to or after the marriage in order to be a U.S. citizen at the time of her child’s birth. But while the Cable Act allowed women spouses to have their own citizenship, surely the Act did not nor could it constitutionally create a new definition of Article II’s natural born citizen clause, which had always required that both of a child’s parents be citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

So, only a child born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth is a natural born citizen. Regarding the child’s parents, the controlling point is not how the parents of a child both became U.S. citizens prior to the child’s birth, but rather, that they were both U.S. citizens prior to the birth. Philosophically and legally, there could not be any dual allegiance at birth for the Founders. In fact, the Founders viewed dual allegiance as a monstrosity. House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated: “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” The citizen “parents” requirement is needed to cut off any jus sanguinis allegiance claims and the birth in the United States or its equivalent requirement is needed to cut off any jus soli allegiance claims over the child by any foreign power. These unified birth circumstances, cutting of any claims of allegiance by any foreign nation through either jus sanguinis or jus soli, are required in order to achieve unity of citizenship and allegiance of the child at the time of the child’s birth. It is only with such unity of citizenship in and allegiance to the United States that a person is born with sole and absolute allegiance to the United States and not subject to any foreign power, a quality that the Framers required of future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military in order to keep foreign and monarchical influence out of those singular and all-powerful offices.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is my comment on June 19, 2014 at 9:55 PM about Mario's comment posted above.

Implication and Nuance about John Jay

When I am reading a multi-thought exposition, I learn by opening up the sections that jump out at me and say, Art, listen up, read this again, so I opened up 2 paragraphs that Mario posted on his blog on June 19, 2014 at 8:24 PM.

I opened up Mario's comment, not only for myself but also for inquisitive and not vindictive Obama-birthers who want to become better informed about the original intent and the original genesis meaning implicit in the 1700s common law understanding of the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" and that ONLY the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child.

The "unity of citizenship and allegiance" and the 1700 historical reality is informative and instructive to dispel the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth of the 2000s Obama birth narrative that ONLY "one-citizen-parent" is sufficient to make a person a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be POTUS.

EITHER ONLY "one-citizen-parent" was implied by John Jay OR ONLY "two-citizen-parents" was implied when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington less than two months before the framers adopted the language of the entire Constitution, and specifically Article II Section 1 clause 5.

BOTH, two "citizen" parents is my choice.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is Mario's comment, opened up for quick scanning.

paragraph 5
Congress abrogated the common law
when it created more citizens of the United States through is naturalization acts.

Under the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855,
that same child,
born in England to an English father
who married an American mother
was also not a citizen of the United States,
for the father and therefore both parents
had to be U.S. citizens for the child to be a citizen of the United States.

Paragraph 6
Second, Jay’s letter is further evidence that
the Framers required both parents to be citizens
before a child could be accepted as a U.S. citizen.
[...]
The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790
provided that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen “parents”
“shall be considered as natural born citizens,”
which the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790
changed to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

But Jay made no mention of such a possible change to the common law in his letter.
Jay did not even given it a thought
given that Vaughan was born to an alien father
which also made his mother an alien.

Given that Jay made no mention of Vaughan’s American mother
as having any controlling effect
or whether Vaughan had one or two U.S. citizen parents,
we can see that early Congress
required that both parents had to be citizens,
and not just one.

If both parents
of a child born
out of the United States
had to be citizens
for the child to be born a “citizen of the United States,”
then, given that early Congress made no distinction
between a child born in or out of the United States
when the child was born to alien parents,
surely they also had to be both citizens
for that child to be born a natural born citizen.

Jay’s letter goes to prove that
being born to one citizen parent,
unless it was the father who was a citizen
and in which case upon marrying an alien woman
also made her a U.S. citizen,
was not accepted as the equivalent of born to “citizen parents.”

[>> "... being born to one citizen parent [the mother in the 1700s]
>> was not accepted as the equivalent of born to 'citizen parents.' "]

On the other hand,
born to a citizen father and an alien mother,
given that the mother took on the citizenship of the husband,
was tantamount to being born to citizen parents.

["... tantamount..."
= "IF" married to each other BEFORE their child is born on U.S. soil in 1787
(before and until U.S. jurisdictions was defined later)
= a U.S. "natural born Citizen" as implied by my new best friend original birther John Jay when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to original birther George Washington. ]

BOTH parents.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is my follow up comment on June 21, 2014 at 9:17 PM

ajtelles said...

Whack the pinata for original intent and original genesis goodies for all...

Mario, your extrapolation on June 21, 2014 at 4:47 PM from my new best friend John Jay's letter to Del Campo on Nov. 3, 1781, while Jay was still in Spain, hit Jay's original genesis meaning for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" on the bull's eye.

[...]

>> But even with an American mother,
>> Jay still considered Vaughan alien born.

>>Had Senator Ted Cruz been born in Canada
>> to a Cuban father and a U.S. citizen mother
>> in place of Vaughan,
>> John Jay would have ruled that
>> he [Sen. Cruz] was alien born
>> and needed naturalization after birth."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

John Jay knew his 1700s era "unity of citizenship and allegiance" common law.

1a – In the 1700s, Vaughan's mother – a U.S. citizen before marriage, and, before the first U.S. naturalization statute was passed in 1790, by marriage, a foreign citizen – gave birth on British soil when her son was born to a British citizen father.

1b – In the 1900s, Cruz's mother – a U.S. citizen before marriage and, by statute, still a U.S. citizen after marriage – gave birth on foreign soil when her son was born to a foreign citizen father.

2a – In the 1700s, Vaughan – had singular British citizenship when the letter was written in 1781 BEFORE the first U.S. naturalization act was passed in 1790.

2b -In the 1900s, Cruz – had dual citizenship AFTER U.S. naturalization acts were passed, specifically the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (see 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 to 1409).

Sen. Cruz is a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act "citizen." See specifically the INA: ACT 301, Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)], about half way down the page, with live links to the original USCIS.gov page.

>> http://originalbirtherdocument18.blogspot.com/

To be a 1787 Article II "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be POTUS, Sen. Cruz needed to be born ONLY on U.S. soil (and jurisdictions according to all immigration acts since 1790) AND birth ONLY to TWO U.S. citizen parents married to each other BEFORE Sen. Cruz was born.

My new best friend and original birther John Jay in 1781 OR in 1787 did NOT imply the 2000s myth of the 2000s "one-citizen-parent" theory, whether it was ONLY the citizen father or ONLY the citizen mother, which is the 2000s myth that ONLY ONE U.S. citizen parent was implied (NEVER asserted as the original intent if John Jay by the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, only implied) when Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note on July 25, 2787 to original birther George Washington.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

John Jay's “citizen of them all—wish" May 31, 1781

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog on October 24, 2014.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16

<<>>

I posted on Mario's blog the 1781 letter from John Jay to a person named Del Campo about a British subject named Vaughan who had a British citizen father and an American citizen mother. Mr. Vaughan wanted to take the oath of allegiance to America in 1781. Jay's letter was written to a person named Del Campo in November 3, 1781 about five months after Jay wrote to Ben Franklin about Mr. Vaughan on May 31, 1781.

Mario had a comment to Bryan Gene Olson and Slartibarfast (aka S...), on Cafe Con Leche on October 18, 2014 at 8:20 pm which reminded me of John Jay's letter to Del Campo about the English subject Mr. Vaughan and Jay's first letter to Ben Franklin which included a comment about Mr. Vaughan.

Here are three sentences of Mario's comment to Bryan and S in the first paragraph on Cafe Con Leche Republicans -

>> "It makes absolutely no sense that a person could be a natural born citizen of each state to which he may change his residency.

>> "Natural born citizen status is acquired only one time and that is at the time of one’s birth.

>> "It is not acquired later in life as one may change residency from one state to another. "

Here is a portion of the letter from John Jay to Ben Franklin -

Jay concluded his letter* to Franklin this way:

"I believe it to be the Inclination as well as the Interest of America to augment her Number of Citizens but still her Consent to admit a Foreigner must be as necessary as his consent to be admitted besides, it appears to me that an oath of Allegeance to the united States can with propriety be only administ[e]red to Servants of Congress—for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them all—I wish these Difficulties did not oppose my complying with the Request of Mr Vaughan whom I am the more desirous of serv[in]g as he appears to possess your Regard."

* May 31, 1781
>> http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedNames.jsp?ssn=001-66-0009
>> Click on the date "Thu, May 31, 1781" to read Jay's entire short letter to Franklin.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

>> "for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them all—I wish ... ."

Jay got his "wish" at the September, 1787 Constitutional Convention when his "hint" (i.e., suggestion) to Washington was accepted and adopted by the delegates that the Command in chief authority be bestowed only on a "natural born Citizen," and not as his friend Hamilton favored, a person merely "born a Citizen" of the entire Union.

In 1787 Jay wanted a higher hurdle of being born a "natural born" citizen of the Union instead of the lower hurdle of merely being "born a citizen" of the Union, i.e., merely a "native" of the Union.

This is the same "lower hurdle" that the Obama birthers promote and the nascent Cruz birthers are starting to promote today because some people like William Rawle in the 1820s and others since Rawle have "believed" and written that birth on U.S. soil with one or two alien parents made a person a "natural born Citizen." Rawle may have "believed" the zero ("0") U.S. citizen parent proposition, but the 1875 Happerset v Minor majority opinion Justices and the framers of the 14th Amendment did not.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original “Birther” Document of the “Union”