I would like to address the issue concerning the true definition of the Natural born citizen clause in America's founding document.....There is a huge mis-perception and erroneous viewpoint in relation with regards to this matter whereby many are led to believe that...So long as one parent of a child is an American citizen, he or she no matter where they are born are in affect deemed as natural born.....And of course so to validate such fallacious and erroneous view point they in many cases make reference to the 14th amendment so to validate their claim or position on on this matter......So I would like to address the contrasting difference between the true intent for the 14th amendment and the Natural citizenship clause, and also the origins and source for the true definition of the natural citizen clause adapted by our nations founders.
Effectively the definition of natural born citizen which was first Ratified on 1790 then reformed in 1795, several years prior to the adopting of the 14th amendment which was effectively adopted on July 9, 1868....Please refer to the following to that effect...
Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "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citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."[21] This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as "natural born," stating that "the children of citizens of the United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" while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act
Which clearly means that...All children born out side of U.S jurisdiction although maintain U.S citizenship status...They however are NOT! perceived as ( Natural Born )...Therefore we can conclude that....For any child born from either one or two parents who are citizens, this in its self is not sufficient enough for them to to hold Natural citizen status if they are In affect born out side of United states jurisdiction.....Meaning that...Any child in order to be recognised in accordance with the United States Constitution as a natural born...He or she must in addition to his or her parents being citizens...The child in question must also be born within the jurisdiction of the United States as well....I would also like to bring your attention to the true source or inspiration for our founders so to implement the Natural born citizenship clause in our nations founding document.....This was William Blackstone, who was effectively the main authority on the Natural born definition....He addressed the the original meaning or true definition of "natural born" in his Commentaries on the Laws of England,Volume II where he states the following:
'' As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons ( under foreign attachments ) from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that ( no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council. ) ''
A definition which was ultimately duplicated or copied by our founders who in turn utilised Mr. Blackstone's definition of the Natural Born clause during the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 17951795 convention as shown above.
THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
Effectively , the natural born citizenship clause was put in to place so to address the concern related to the danger of a foreign sovereignty or intrigue infiltrating and thus influencing the office of the presidency...And thus was a clause which concerned international jurisdiction ( Just as Mr.Blackstone had expressed his concern to this effect in his Commentaries on the Laws of England,Volume II, addressing the purpose for and the true definition of what constitutes a natural born citizen. as opposed to the 14th amendment which addresses state or national jurisdiction...As for the 14th amendment was effectively adopted in consequence of the Dred Scott decision...However...( " The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does however provide that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.")...Meaning that..the 14th amendment effectively addresses specifically state or national jurisdiction and boundaries and NOT! the issue of ( Natural born citizenship ) statues which is as I have already pointed out...A clause which addresses specifically the issue concerning international jurisdiction out side of U.S sovereign boarders and boundaries....
Hence why the 14th amendment unlike the natural citizenship clause makes no reference or mentioning of natural born citizenship requirements etc....For the simple fact that the 14th amendment was adopted in relation with slavery and that of state or national jurisdiction hence the Dred Scott scenario which concerned the jurisdiction of slavery between one state and another....Now there was another explanation as to why the 14th amendment has made no reference or mentioning of the natural born citizenship clause..This is simply down to the fact that all slaves in question weir in affect already natural born citizens for the simple fact that they, also both their parents and forbearance had been born within ( AMERICAN BOUNDARIES OR JURISDICTION ) therefore...They all effectively already held ( NATURAL BORN STATUES ) .
Darius Radmanesh
like it, share it, support it, and follow us on the sites below
No comments:
Post a Comment