I stop discussing things with people when they parse responses to suit them.
I certainly didn't change one word of your three conclusions you wrote. I simply gave you my interpretation of them, which I don't think violates the rules of debate.
Once again the Founders drew a. Clear line of distinction between what constitutes a "citizen" and what constitutes a " natural born citizen" but you refuse to see it, even when it is clearly written in plain English.
There are none so blind as they who will simply not see.
I respect your writing and your intelligence, but let's try to keep it impersonal. Thanks.
"And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 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 … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.”
The quote is detailing the handling of children of naturalized parents. It says nothing about those born here, which under English common law were natural-born subjects.
Obama's father was NEVER a resident of the U.S. He was here on a temporary student visa. Obama is not a natural born citizen.
You do realize that the naturalization laws have changed many times don't you. Today any citizen parent qualifies if their children are born outside US jurisdiction. But assuming that was still in the naturalization laws, it doesn't change anything, since Obama was born in the US, making him a natural-born citizen.
Anyone BORN on U.S. soil may be a citizen, and people naturalized are citizens of the U.S., but to be a natural born citizen you must be the child of parents who are citizens.
I agree, if the child is born outside the US, which is exactly what the Naturalization Act said. That is the only place it refers to natural born citizen, because the question arose about dealing with those born on foreign soil. Since the point you made isn't reflected in the Act of 1790, one must look to the usage of the term "natural born citizen". A look at Massachusetts naturalization acts shows through 1791 shows that the term "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" were used interchangeably. We know what the meaning of "natural born subject" was at that time. It was
jus soli. The term used in Article II was "natural born citizen". It was placed in the text with absolutely no debate or discussion. If the intent was to completely change its meaning, any reasonable person would think there would have been some discussion of it.
Again, I must refer you to Wong Kim Ark, where the majority Justice wrote extensively about the meaning of the term, and its history.
Of course, after passage of the 14th Amendment, the term became obsolete, as only two types of citizens were recognized for all purposes, those born within US jurisdiction (natural born) and those naturalized through law.
