Completely false. The 1790 naturalization act completely obliterates that argument
The act also provided that children born abroad when both parents are US citizens "shall be considered as natural born citizens", but specified that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".This act was the only US statute ever to use the term "natural born citizen", found in the US Constitution concerning the prerequisites for a person to serve as president or vice president, and the Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the term.
Consider the case where:
M1 and F1 are US citizens abroad
They have a child, M2. M2 is a considered a "natural born citizen."
M2 never leaves that foreign nation.
M2 has a child with F2 (a US citizen abroad): M3.
M3 is not a US citizen as his M2 was never resident in the United States.
In the context of the Act, it seems like that clause is to prevent a chain of "natural born citizens" who never stepped foot in the US. It doesn't block citizenship by other avenues, it limits the naturalization act itself.
The act also limited citizenship to race and moral character. The entire point is no where is Jus Soli the metric, even the 14th avoids it and that amendment was ratified under a suspended constitution which makes it invalid.
Did you really just spew that stupid when it literally word for word says that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"? Show me anywhere in the constitution where it says jus solis, even the 14th explicitly avoids the term. I’ll wait!
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.
This is verbatim what JS means ('right of soil"). Regardless of parentage.
Spelled out by the US Dept of State:
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution...
The 14th codifies in the US Constitution what was the Common Law consensus. Born in US soil -> Natural born US citizen.
You can't define a nation if you have no legal definition of who your citizens are.
Congress can of course change what that definition is, but it can't be done by royal decree.
Completely false. The 1790 naturalization act completely obliterates that argument
Consider the case where:
M1 and F1 are US citizens abroad
They have a child, M2. M2 is a considered a "natural born citizen."
M2 never leaves that foreign nation.
M2 has a child with F2 (a US citizen abroad): M3.
M3 is not a US citizen as his M2 was never resident in the United States.
In the context of the Act, it seems like that clause is to prevent a chain of "natural born citizens" who never stepped foot in the US. It doesn't block citizenship by other avenues, it limits the naturalization act itself.
The act also limited citizenship to race and moral character. The entire point is no where is Jus Soli the metric, even the 14th avoids it and that amendment was ratified under a suspended constitution which makes it invalid.
This act defined citizenship by naturalization.
It said nothing about birthright and Jus Solis.
Did you really just spew that stupid when it literally word for word says that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"? Show me anywhere in the constitution where it says jus solis, even the 14th explicitly avoids the term. I’ll wait!
US Constitution:
This is verbatim what JS means ('right of soil"). Regardless of parentage.
Spelled out by the US Dept of State:
How handy it is then that we have a President to use Executive Authority and not a King. No King, no Royal Decree.