Talk:Naturalization Act of 1795

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expire date

Since being white is not longer required for naturalized citizenship, I guess this act is outdated. When was it replaced, and with what? // 213.89.53.155 (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Advocacy

The last edit placed what looks like a political agenda into the article that would support opposition to Barack Obama's being a Natural Born Citizen with the addition of the phrase "and 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 as opposed to natural born citizens." The idea being supported here is that there is a distinction between being born a citizen and being a natural born citizen. It is true that the 1790 act uses "natural born citizen" and that of 1795 does not, but it is now shown that these two are "in opposition". If some reference had been cited justifying the new wording, then it would be OK, but there is no such reference for the conclusion of "opposition". I'm putting it back to where it was a couple weeks ago.72.155.183.110 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has done it again. IP 72.155.183.110 is correct, that there is no justification for the claim in the article that the 1795 statute "confer[s] the status of citizen and not natural born citizen" upon children born overseas to U.S. citizen parents. The statute omits the words "natural born," but nothing in the language or history of the statute suggests that such babies, who are have citizenship at birth, should not be considered "natural born."

I'm going to change the wording to simply say that the 1795 law omits the words "natural born." NCdave (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Left hanging...

I've qualified the statement of this act being replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798 because the latter was repealed. But 213.89.53.155's question above is still quite valid: how much, if any, of this act is still valid, and what sources do we have to make this determination? The later act's article sheds no light on this question, and I found no easy sources to base an expansion on in the few minutes I had for this "drive-by" edit. (I'm sure there are plenty; I just didn't have the time to find quality sources.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]