Just some guy wrote:
In any case, I am a citizen of the European union and a citizen of Ireland. Being one does not make the other impossible. Its not that hard to grasp...
So when people ask where you were born you say Ireland or the EU?
Having lots of family members from Ireland, I can already tell you that they say they were born in Ireland least some American fool take them for being from Scotland.
Do you know why you say you were born in Ireland?
Because while Ireland might be a PART OF the EU, it is not THEE EU, is it?
After Ireland became part of the EU, were people born there considered born in the EU or born in IRELAND?
Oh boy now he has Irish family members. What a surprise
The EU unlike the US is an economic and increasingly political union of independence states with a long history of being independent countries. The USA is made of non independent states that never had an existence as independent states. They were always part of the USA for their entire existence.
Talk to Germany sometime about where they came from. They are as likely to say something like Bavaria rather than Germany. Does not stop Germany being a unified country.
And people born here were and are considered both "born in the EU or born in IRELAND." Here is an Irish Passport... which doubles as an EU Passport. It's right there on the top.
And now for extra comedy..
Just some guy wrote:1. So why were people born there before the 14th amendment not called US CITIZENS? If you say they were, I challenge you to find something that backs you up.
I already did, Mr Mighty Reader. The stiff I quoted from 1830 said flat out that anyone born in the USA was an american citizen. But since you insist
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838)
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“in like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen ; but the power of naturalization, which, under the king, each colony had claimed to regulate by its own laws, remained under the confederacy with the separate states.”
George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866)
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” ‘
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
The 14th amendment was, of course, in 1868. All these people didn't get the memo. And I actually have a lot more quotes I could throw at you...
2. the constitution and the lose confederacy of states eh? yeah you know what you are talking about.
Uh... Articles of Confederation. Look it up, Mr Fantastic Reader
The Continental Congress printed paper money which was so depreciated that it ceased to pass as currency, spawning the expression "not worth a continental". Congress could not levy taxes and could only make requisitions upon the States. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784, although the governors had been asked for two million in 1783 alone.
When John Adams went to London in 1785 as the first representative of the United States, he found it impossible to secure a treaty for unrestricted commerce. Demands were made for favors and there was no assurance that individual states would agree to a treaty. Adams stated it was necessary for the States to confer the power of passing navigation laws to Congress, or that the States themselves pass retaliatory acts against Great Britain. Congress had already requested and failed to get power over navigation laws. Meanwhile, each State acted individually against Great Britain to little effect. When other New England states closed their ports to British shipping, Connecticut hastened to profit by opening its ports.
This was all before the drafting of the Constitution.
I bet you think that the Texans won the Battle of the Alamo too.