Updated 8/10/09
Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to some other government when naturalized or born.
Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no written national birthright rule applicable within the States prior to the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution.
One reason for the absence of an early written national birthright rule is that States had decided for themselves who were their citizens by virtue of being born within the limits of the State. Prior to the 14th amendment citizens of the United States were strictly defined as the citizens of each State.
After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. In England at the time, every person born, with few exceptions such as children born of mix-parentage (they acquired the condition of their father if he was a freeman, else child acquired their mother’s citizenship) or diplomats within the realm of the King was considered a natural born subject under the maxim every man owes natural allegiance to the King. This allegiance was a personnel allegiance owed to the King personally, and such personal allegiance was never owed to any individual under the American system of States.
This natural allegiance was perpetual and difficult to severe or alter (Once a English subject, always a English subject) and was found odious in this country (America went to war against this “natural allegiance” in 1812). The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1779 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:
[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Other States, like Kentucky, made the condition of citizenship dependent on either parent: “…every child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State.”
While all States could be said to have recognized place of birth as conferring State citizenship, it is important to realize many of these States also required of anyone who desired to become domiciled within their limits to first swear off all allegiances to other governments and pledge their allegiance solely to the State. Therefore, a child born to domiciled parents was “born within the allegiance” of the State - and this was truly the prevailing rule and not England’s common law of “natural allegiance” due to the King by place of birth alone.
Addressing a contested South Carolina Election of Rep. William Smith in the House of Representatives in 1794, James Madison said the question of whether Rep. Smith had been a citizen of the United States for seven years at the time of the declaration of independence rested entirely with the Constitution of South Carolina:
From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. Smith was, on the declaration of independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that he has forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this House. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided, in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South Carolina, so far as they can guide us; and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature, so far as they are applicable to the present case. … It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a law existed in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us.
Generally speaking, when an issue of aliens and citizenship went before the courts it meant some State had neglected to enact laws on the subject, thereby forcing the courts to adjudicate citizenship under old common law rules of place of birth. This is exactly what happened with the State of New York in 1844, forcing the State to later withhold citizenship from “transient aliens” by statute.
Conceivably, Congress could had from the beginning attempted to include a defined birthright rule under the laws of naturalization - whether due to place of birth or parentage - but would have found, just as the Thirty-Ninth Congress had discovered, to be no simple matter as individual States had differing opinions over who should, or should not, be its citizens.
As a rule, the nation considered only those patriotic immigrants who came here for the exclusive purpose to settling amongst us, bringing with them wealth, like habits and customs as those worthy to become part of our society. And more importantly, those willing to renounce all prior allegiances to their country of origin and swear fidelity to this one. Paupers, vagabonds and imperialist were universally despised.
Imagine for a moment Congress debating during the constitutional convention, or even years following the adoption of the Constitution, a national criterion for establishing citizenship by birth of all persons as practiced under English common law. Firstly, that would have been rejected by a number of States as placing men of color on an equal footing with the Anglo-Saxon race. This in return forcing perhaps an attempt to compromise using the words “free white men,” with that in return being rejected by some northern States as repugnant of the Declaration’s “all men are created equal.”
Moreover, there undoubtedly would been terrible disputes over the fact the nation was attempting to adopt common law as general law, something more than a few considered derogatory. James Madison succinctly illustrates such dilemma to George Washington:
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law.
So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States - that is to say - not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely under its laws or boarders.
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have natural allegiance in mind since under common law it did not always matter who owed allegiance in advance.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.
During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden (co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country - an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine - and of course, the question of Indians.
Sen. Trumbull attempted to assure Senators that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Sen. Johnson argued that Sen. Trumbull was in error in regards to the Indian’s not being under the jurisdiction of the United States. This must have raised concerns with Howard because he strongly made it known that he had no intention whatsoever to confer citizenship upon the Indians under his amendment, no matter if born within or outside of their tribal lands.
In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:
[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States - just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. Therefore, while both national and the constitutional amendment made no distinction between who can be a citizen (Indian, Chinese, African, German, etc.) both required an exclusive allegiance to this country and that mean not owing any other other government allegiance.
It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.
Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction.
He of course is talking about the laws of naturalization and consent to expatriation by the immigrant in order for him to come completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, i.e., he cannot be a subject of another nation. Without this full and complete jurisdiction, any foreign government can intervene on behalf of their own citizens while they visit or reside within the United States - just as the United States is known to do on behalf of U.S. citizens within other countries.
On July 18, 1868 Sen. Howard explained expatriation to mean “the emigration of the foreigner from his native land to some other land non animo revertendi; that is, with the intention of changing his domicile and making his permanent home in the country to which he emigrates.” Sen. Howard explained that expatriation could only be complete through law alone, and not through any act of the immigrant acting on his own outside of the law - and certainly not by any act of birth.
Any citizen owes the same quality of allegiance to their nation of origin as does their country’s ambassador or foreign ministers while within the limits of another nation unless they freely decide to renounce their allegiance in accordance to law. In other words, it would be preposterous to consider under the meaning given to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that a French subject visiting the United States was not a subject of France, but a complete subject (politically) of the United States while within the limits of the nation without first consenting to expatriation.
The United States has always, as a matter of law, considered new arrivals subjects of the country from which they owed their allegiance. As a matter of law, new arrivals were recognized as bearing the allegiance of the country of their origin, and the only way that could change is through the voluntarily act of expatriation. No more is this evident then with the recording of the certificate of intent to become a citizen of the United States:
James Spratt, a native of Ireland, aged about twenty-six years, bearing allegiance to the king of Great Britain and Ireland, who emigrated from Ireland and arrived in the United States on the 1st of June 1812, and intends to reside within the jurisdiction and under the government of the United States, makes report of himself for naturalization according to the acts of congress in that case made and provided, the 14th of April anno domini 1817, in the clerk’s office of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington: and on the 14th of May 1817, the said James Spratt personally appeared in open court, and declared on oath, that it is his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, &c.
Those who were not qualified under naturalization laws of the United States to become citizens of the United States would be unable to renounce their prior allegiances and consent to the full jurisdiction of the United States as needed to become a citizen. This is how children born to Indian’s and Asians were prevented from becoming citizens themselves under the language chosen.
What changed after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment? Not much really. States adopted laws that excluded either “transient aliens” or those not resident of the State. New York by 1857 had already a code that read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.” This code overturned the court ruling in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) where the court was forced to consider the English common law rule in regards to children born of aliens because New York had no laws on the subject.
After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted identical language as New York. States could enact such laws because “transient aliens” could not be considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Now, citizens of the United States who were born in any State would be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States (Hint: newly freed slaves who were now citizens themselves).
The State of Connecticut adopted a law that read, “All persons born in this State … except aliens, paupers, and fugitives from justice or service, are and shall be deemed to be citizens of this State, owing it allegiance and entitled to receive its protection, until they shall have voluntarily withdrawn from its limits and become incorporated into some other State or sovereignty as members thereof.”
Overwhelming evidence against the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” or “not subject to any foreign power” as reaffirming the common law doctrine of citizenship by birth to aliens can be found following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1867 George Helm Yeaman, United States Minister to Denmark, in his well received treatise on allegiance and citizenship, which was presented to Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.
It probably would not be a stretch to say Congress shared the same sentiments being expressed in the United Kingdom at the time in terms of conflicts arising from “double allegiances” from alien births. The Report of the Royal Commissioners in 1868 on Naturalization and Allegiance recommend the following changes to British law: “Children born within the realm of alien fathers who have been themselves born abroad, shall be deemed aliens. But such children shall become British subjects (1) upon the naturalization of their fathers, or (2) upon their being themselves naturalized either by their fathers during their minority or by themselves at full age.”
If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both Howard and Trumbull were lawyers).
Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.
Perhaps because he was absolutely correct.
Feudal monarchies or presumed democracies cannot operate without fundamental understandings and premises - those details of whose allegiance to whom is recognized and voluntary.
Governing is neither a privilege nor a right, assuming that consent of the governed is the primary fundamental principle upon which government is to take place. Vanities rely upon consent, not coercion, when the masses elect persons to serve in government, and governments are made of ideals and principles and policies, not people. Performance within the parameters of those ideals and principles is what “subject to jurisdiction” means in principle, but the carrying out of government in a manner conforming to the ideal is what determines consent. Dictated laws is not consent of the governed. Likewise, government that seeks to administrate for Dictator, Monarch, or Church cannot be performance rising to the level of consent of the governed. Constitutions formed to carry out the dictates of specific functions of presumed authority must be first recognized as having the authority to do the dictating, and to expect government to perform its bidding. Government can only be a lackey for legitimate purpose, not for illegitimate purpose; that is why Constitutions are critical to maintaining legitimate government. Departure from the Constitutional principle becomes automatic treason, and those who effectuate that departure are treasonous by definition. In that regard, there is nothing more important than the Constitution and its purpose to perform for all of its citizens, excluding none - whether those citizens may be called subjects, inhabitants, or residents. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the rights and privileges of the born as well as the unborn in order to gain the stature by which the Constitution is expected to prevail beyond the normal lifetime of those living, and extends to the lifetimes of those not yet born. It would be a very chaotic world to be born into a society whose rules are dictated by the living already there, and changeable at whim by introducing a chaotic concept of changeability that depends upon who is living at the moment and who isn’t. The church long ago recognized these problems, and hence has brought great pressures upon the governments of the world to recognize its godly purpose, and therefore to influence government to respect its wishes and administrate for it; but that concession by government is wholly unauthorized, and wholly irrelevant to good government who main and only purpose is to administrate the Constitution, and to allow nothing and no one to interfere with that job. Government dedicated and devoted to government has fewer problems than government uncertain of its sovereignty, or its purpose. Allowing religion or economics to unduly influence its purpose is unwise and bad government regardless of who does the performing. The Constitution was never intended to be an adjunct to religious authority to administrate over the things the church doesn’t. There is no “we” in Constitutional government that includes the church. Government and religion do not rule side by side, separate from each other. There is only government, or the choice is only religious rule. It cannot be both, jockeying for survival, or jockeying for authority and sovereignty.
Mankind has had difficulty deciding whether he wants church rule or government rule - but the decision is essential to survival, and the decision, in theory, was made in 1787 for the U.S., and at different dates for other countries.
The founding fathers of America chose government, and all states ratified it, making it the law of the land. Attempts to erode its efficacy, or its meaning and interpretation have been the substance of judicial review since that time by various disgrutled groups and too privileged Judges and representatives. Governing is not difficult but requires the primary component of commitment. Mankind cannot serve two masters.
Yes, I agree, law regarding the birth right of citizenship to the foreign Place…..And also thanks for this nice article….. ——————-’ johnsmith Reverse Mortgages
JimAZtec replied to comment from John:
Elk v. Wilkins said “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means:
That I believe is exactly is how Howard and Trumbull had defined the meaning before the Senate.
John replied to comment from Sara:
They do have the benefit of text on their side.
I find it odd that an ordinary statute passed sometime after the Fourteenth Amendment and containing the words “subject to a foreign power” is being trotted out here as evidence that that’s what the Amendment actually means.
If anything, the fact that the same Congress used broader language in the Amendment than it did in the statute is evidence that legislators intended the Amendment to cover more ground. If the intent was to deny citizenship to a broad class of persons born in the United States—and this article has already demonstrated that lawmakers knew HOW, linguistically, this could be achieved—then the Amendment would use the same language as the statute.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clearly just means “amenable to the laws thereof.” All persons physically present in the United States—save diplomats—are subject to its jurisdiction.
This is why it is possible for cops in Idaho to issue enforceable speeding tickets to Canadians.
Would it be fair to say any child born in the US of non-citizens, whose affairs or rights are capable of being represented by a foreign country (via embassy or other foreign diplomatic office) exercising jurisdiction over said child, is a child not subject to the US jurisdiction at the moment of birth, and for that reason the child does not qualify for being considered a natural born citizen.
Just as a child of a diplomat born in the US would have diplomatice immunity (not being a natural born citizen in that case) so also any other child born of parents with external jurisdication over them does not meet the definition for birthright-citizenship, since an external jurisdiction rightly applies at time of birth.
For example, say a child is born of foreign parents in the US, can the US prohibit taking the child back to the foreign country without protest or interference of the foreign country invoking international conventions? If not, then the US has no jurisdiction, and the child does not meet the test of the 14th amendment.
JimAZtec replied to comment from Dean:
“The United States allows individuals, under some circumstances, to hold dual citizenship. That is in direct conflict with the analysis given here.”
Your analogy is deeply flawed. The United States has never recognized a different citizenship of its citizens due to being born in another country whose laws might bestow the countries own citizenship on them. That country might recognize the dual-citizenship but the United States never has.
I don’t think we even viewed American citizens born in England as both natural born British citizens and natural born Americans because they were not of the legal age to consent in throwing off their American citizenship through their father to remain solely British.
The United States allows individuals, under some circumstances, to hold dual citizenship. That is in direct conflict with the analysis given here. Therefore, a person born to US citizens in another country that confers citizenship on that person would, by this definition, not be a citizen of the US.
Richard Smith replied to comment from Chad:
Chad I think, and understand this is my openion, you are not a “SERVANT” to the govt. The Govt serves “WE THE PEOPLE” Our Congressman represent us and should follow the desires and wishes of the majority of the people. I know it seems lately they do not hold to there Oath Of Office. From another perspective, while in the armed services you are serving your country not the federal govt. With that I’m gone…. All the best to you. Richard Smith President Tomball Tea Party
Lindsey Melihercsik replied to comment from JIM:
Today White House Lawn- Mexican President Calderon’s response regarding to Living with Values & Princilpes that unite the U.S. & Mexico..”We can do so with a community that will promote a DIGNIFIED LIFE and orderly way for both countries, who are, SOME of THEM, still living here in the shadows with such laws as Arizona Law that is placing OUR people to face discrimination. “OUR PEOPLE” Here the Mexican President acknowledges Mexican illegal aliens are his Foreign Subjects. Their Allegiance IS TO Mexico! Proven by the shere fact they send over 1 Billion U.S. Taxfree Dollars across the border every year. The U.S. citizen is drowning in debt, while the Mexican Govt is prospering because their Northern Cash Cow. The Mexican Govt Benefits from the enormous influx of Cash, while We continue to provide their Subjects with the DIGNIFIED LIFE. The U.S. is bleeding from the arteries, Anchor Babies are not legal. If their parents are recognized Citizens of another Country, than they are also Citizens of that Country. No Other Country in this world will give an American Foreign Citizenship just because that American was Born there. Why should the United States? If you don’t take legal steps to Citizenship upon entry to US (Crossing Legally if the 1st step) than I should not be forced to Support You. The U.S. Citizen is struggling enough.
IF A PERSON COMMITS A CRIME(JUMPING THE FENCE LIKE A RABID DOG)And have kids, the kids should not benefit from the crime.IF I ROB A BANK AND GIVE THE MONEY TO MY KIDS,CAN THEY KEEP IT?HELL NO!CAN I STAY OUT OF JAIL BECAUSE I HAVE KIDS.BE SERIOUS.CLEAN UP YOUR OWN FILTHY RATHOLE OF A COUNTRY BEFORE YOU INFECT MINE.
Hmm… I was born in Florida state and refuse to give allegiance to either the corporation known as “State of Florida” or the “United States”. I simply give allegiance to myself… making myself “I am that I am” I am simply part of “We the People” those who created the government to be their servant.
Go back to Mexico and have a real revolution. Stop living in the 18th century.
Hell Mark in Florida, my brother and I were born in Washington DC (Sibley Memorial Hospital). That makes us U.S. citizens. Our parents were slaves (Wisconsin and Michigan).
In Reply to Immortal_Relic: Dear Relic: Article I of what you call the “written constitution” states, The legislative power herein vested…”. Article VI further tells us that only enactments “…in pursuance” of that Constitution have force and effect. Enactments not in pursuance of the Constitution are void, stillborn. A government officer acting under pretext of a void enactment is acting in his private capacity.
In Reply to Immortal_Relic:
Some very good points indeed. However, please consider the following:
“No white person born within the limits of the [several] United States and subject to THEIR [not “its jurisdiction” or the “jurisdiction thereof” as in the 14th amendment] jurisdiction … or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under THEIR [i.e. the several states’] laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments [13th and 14th] to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment … was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous CLASS OF PERSONS domiciled [not on all persons born] within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country … ” Van Valkenburg v. Brown 43 Cal 43, 47 (1872)
I do not know if this case is still valid, but in 1872 this was the view of a California court.
Notice that section 1992 of the U.S. Revised Statutes reads: “All PERSONS born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, … are DECLARED to be citizens of the United States.”
However, Amendment 14 reads: “All persons born in the United States … AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof ARE [not declared to be] citizens of the United States.”
Such PERSONS must not only be born in the United States, they must also be “subject to the jurisdiction [not jurisdictions as in “their” jurisdiction] thereof. “It’s jurisdiction, not “their” jurisdiction as it is written in Amendment 13.
Notice also that Sec. 1992 does not say that these PERSONS born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power ARE citizens of the United States. It only “declares” them to be citizens of the United States.
Does a declaration in the U.S. Revised Statutes make anyone a citizen of the United States? What does it mean to “declare” some thing to be a fact?
DECLARE. To make known … To signify … To publish; to utter; to announce clearly some OPINION or RESOLUTION. To ALLEGE or affirm. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition
Allege? Opinion? Resolution?
ALLEGE. To state, recite, assert, or charge; to make an allegation. To affirm, assert, or declare. Black’s 4th
ALLEGATION. The assertion, declaration, or statement of a party to an action, made in a pleading, setting out what he EXPECTS TO PROVE. Black’s 4th
To declare or allege that all persons born in the United States who are not subject to any foreign power are to be citizens of the United States does not make them to be such citizens, lacking proof that the allegation is true. Where is the proof that such persons so born have voluntarily submitted themselves to the dominion of the U.S. federal government - i.e. “consented” to be governed?
We know that “all MEN are born free and independent” so how do these men born free and independent become PERSONS who are subject citizens of the United States federal government?
It is clear where a naturalized citizen CONSENTS to be governed by reading the oath he or she takes to be naturalized, but where does a native born man or woman take such an oath wherein he CONSENTS to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States federal government?
Could the Sec. 1992 “declaration” be nothing more than an “disputable presumption” a.k.a. an unproved allegation?
Remember also that “Every one of full age is PRESUMED to be sui juris and one who is sui juris has all the rights to which a freeman is entitled.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
In reality “every one” appears to be PERSONS who are PRESUMED to be 14th Amendment citizens of the United States federal government.
STATUS. Standing, state or condition. The legal relation of individual to rest of the community. The rights, duties, capacities and in-capacities which DETERMINE a person to a given CLASS. [It is] A legal personal relationship, not temporary in its nature nor terminable at the mere will of the parties, with which third persons AND THE state are concerned. While term implied relation it is not a mere relation. It also means ESTATE, because it signifies the condition or circumstances in which one STANDS with regard to his property. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition
All men may be born equal, but today all men are presumed to be in the “class of persons” who are subjects of the United States federal government and such SUBJECT class of persons cannot own any thing absolutely, can they?
I suppose that is why all men presumed to be in such “class of persons” are referred to in their deeds as “tenants of the entirety” or “tenants in common” rather than proprietors.
This would all be fine if the written Constitution had ever been adopted.
The Declaration of Independence freed Man from all written law as he was equal under the creator.
The Articles of Confederation set up representatives, United States in Congress assembled, of the 13 free and independent states to protect their interest and for their protection from within and without, Man was still free and not a part of that document. Although this document stated that a Man could now freely inhabit or be a citizen of a state.
The Northwest Ordinance was a land grab by the United States in Congress assembled in which the representatives of the states took proprietary power, the power of ownership. Proprietary not government power is being exercised under this document. Federal power or authority arises from this proprietary power.
The wriiten Constitution (this constitution) is never adopted and a switched Constitution of the United States is put in its place. Therefore all law is for the territory owned by or ceded to the United States of America and it is their and the people who volunteer to live in that territory called citizens of the United States which gives the Federal government jurisdiction and is where all written law applies.
The Office of President is an appointed position by the Commitee of States, which became the Senate in the written Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation at Art. IX Clause 5.
The written Constitution “this Constitution” mandates qualifications to this appointed position in the written Constition at Article II Section 1 Clause 5. However, George Washington one of the persons who established this Constitution would be one year shy of meeting those qualifications when appointed as the 1st President. So he took the employees oath at Article II Section 1 Clause 8 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. For the written Constitution to be adopted he must have meet the qualifications of that Office and been bound, through signature, to support “this Constitution” by taking the oath at Article VI Clause 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
No president in the history of America has ever been bound by that oath and therefore the wriiten Constitution “this Constitution” while ordained and established has never been adopted or more than a document for proprietary power, the power of ownership. Proprietary not government power is being exercised. Federal power, Corporate, or authority arises from this proprietary power over the the land owned by or ceded to the United States of America; a place I do not reside in.
The Federal Corporation doing business as the United States and its written laws do not apply to man freely inhabiting the states but a person places himself within their jurisdiction who claims that they reside in their territory as citizens of the United States under their un-adopted Constitution for the United States “the Constitution”
Where in the written constitution was any power given to legislate for Man or any other organic law for that matter unless he consented to their authority.
An alien in a foreign country must obey the laws of that country. However, a child born to an alien, is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the USA, as their parent(s) is/are traveling under a passport, except both an illegal alien and an alien under passport, have not relinquished bonds to their homeland, nor established allegiance to the USA, and the citizenship of the mother transfers to the minor child. Aliens, are not subject to military conscription of the USA, they can run to or call on their consulates or Embassy, for help, since they owe allegiance to and are subject to the jurisdiction of laws and treaties, of their homeland, not the USA. A child born to an alien mother, with no known USA citizen father, on USA soil, is not a USA citizen, since the parent is subject to foreign jurisdiction, and has not established allegiance to the USA. Also, the 14th mandates all laws be applied equally.
In Reply to jeff: We are not a democracy. The U.S. is a Republic.
In Reply to Larry: Of course she is wrong. Prior to 1866 slaves children born were not automatically given citizenship as slaves were not considered citizens. That is what the 14th amendment intended to change giving ex-slaves and their children citizenship status. I can not only not believe some of the idiots that are in W.D.C., but also the idiot voters who keep re-electing them.
In Reply to Jim Delaney:Jim, we have not gotten to the point of automatically extending citizenship to those born here of foreign or illegally here parents who owe allegiance to their home countries. What is happening is a total mis-use of the 14th Amendment with the pro-illegal alien groups such as LaRaza, etc. (and our news medias). They are using the boo-hoo, the babies are citizens balderdash when raids catch a bunch of the illegal parents. You know the saying, repeat a lie often enough and people will eventually believe it is the truth.
In Reply to Jim Delaney:
I think we presumed that the unofficial immigrant (I am being generous) is staying indefinitely. That may not be the case. On that technicality, how can we be sure what the allegiance of the undocumented immigrant is? Who are we to presume citizenship for their babies born here?
We might want to publicize on the border and elsewhere “you and your children cannot be citizens unless you contact the authorities (any police officer) immediately. Failure to do so is a crime. Any police officer can refer you to immigration authorities.”
“Welcome to America. We welcome you. Follow the law, don’t hide from it.”
The contention that every foreign national born in this country could have U.S. citizenship imposed upon him over the wishes of his parents would seem to be high handed. Let’s look at it from the hypothetical viewpoint of U.S. nationals who have a child in a hospital in the fictional Islamic state of Urastan. Under Urastan law, all born within its borders hold allegiance to King and must spend their first ten years of their life in that country. The parents of such a child would recoil in horror at the prospects of this and claim the child to be a citizen of the U.S. by virtue of parentage. What is the moral difference between the position of those who claim that all born on U.S. soil have citizenship imposed upon them by the State, in spite of parental desire, and that of dictatorship which does the same? The answer is there is none. Jus sanguis is the only morally defensible position, and P.A. Madison does well in making the case for the framer’s intent.
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark the majority held the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” had been adjudicated in Elk v. Wilkins: “The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins.”
This is something I have totally missed. I agree this statement by the court places the emphasis upon Elk v. Wilkins for the adjudication of subject to the jurisdiction under the 14th. Requiring political rights to complete the jurisdiction makes sense because that is truly what makes one a subject. Excellent article.
The Wong Kim Ark Court mangled the meaning of the phrase by applying 2 seperate meanings of the phrase to the objects of the phrase. “Those Born” simply had to be within territorial limits of the US, while those “Naturalized” had to renounce their previous allegiance to a foreign government, and pledge SOLE Allegiance to the US. “Those Born” are allowed to keep a dual allegiance (dual citizenship) until the age of consent, where they can “elect citizenship”, while those Naturalized need to have SOLE political allegiance. How can it be possible that “Those Born” and qualified to be President or VP, are held to a lesser standard and test of jurisdiction? It is NOT even in the realm of possibility that the Framers thought that children of illegal aliens should be qualified to be POTUS or VP.
In Reply to Tami: I think you probably have it right, but yours is a politically incorrect stance. So you know what that means.
Everytime I read and re-read both this article and the “meaning of natural born citizen” article, I am left with the rather clear impression that children born of illegal aliens on US territory were not intended by the framers to be US citizens since they are born of parents with loyalty to a foreign jurisdiction. That seems pretty straightforward. Not sure yet how we got to the point of automatically granting US citizenship (vs natural born citizenship) to ANYONE born within the jurisdiction of the US. Am still working on that. At this point, it just doesn’t make any sense at all—except to those insufferably self-serving politicians who forever try to ingratiate themselves to minority groups.
Const. for the USA is a political document and the founders of it scoundrels and liars. It is well known they did what they had no authority to do in their capacity as delegates from the several States. The Federalists were nationalists…it was coup.
In Reply to Tami: To all due respect you are a trash talker You should work in a landfill You will be a formidable worker
In Reply to Tami:
There must be a law regarding the birth right of citizenship to the foreign country. Like the British Nationality Act 1948 Part II Section 5. This means the British Subjects children are born “subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain”. Mexicans do not have such a law that affects the citizenship of their children. Note - Obama was born subject to the laws of Great Britian because his father was a British Subject at the time of Obama’s birth.
If I understand this correctly, if the Father is a citizen or Mother, (if the father is not alive) is a Citizen, Then the child is a Citizen. If the father, or Mother are subjects of a forign Country the child is a citizen or subject of the originating country. So unless the parents are Naturalized, then the child is a subject of their parents country of Origain. Then illigal “anchor babies” are not given automatic Citizenship of these United states?
It has just become the thing to do with no legal standing. Do I have this right? If the parents are subjects of Mexico and illigaly cross the border, with no intention to renounce their Mexican Citizenship, and with no intention of taking the Oath of The United staes, with loyalties to their country of origan, then the infant is a Mexican Citizen no matter where he was actually born?
Poor babies.
The U.S. Constitution wasn’t “intended” to apply to Black people either.
Times change. Get over it.
Stop living in the 18th century.
The argument that the United States had not recognized double allegiance is the most persuasive case against automatic birth citizenship I’ve seen yet. I gather when Sen. Howard proclaimed the clause to be virtue of “natural law” he meant born to fathers who were already a citizen of U.S. This would also be the rule of law of nations.
There is something awfully “fishy” about the conclusion found in wong kim ark.
“I’ll tell you right now…I am not a US Citizen because of where my parents were born (they were born in the USA). I am a Citizen because of where I was born!!!”
Brian, I’ll tell you right now if your parent are U.S. citizens and you were born in Germany (not on a U.S. military base) THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE A GERMAN CITIZEN! Idiot!
Michael,83 U.S.Army-173d Airborne Brigade-‘65-‘71 Vietnam (Honorable Discharge, 14 campaign streamers, 4 unit citations, Purple Heart, & a Distinguished Service Cross)
Oh, I forgot, what is up with this:
—Brian, 30 male, US Navy submarines 1999-2003 (honorable discharge 2003).
Is that suppose to mean something here? Who cares?
Oh, let me try and impress everybody! So you sailed around the world in a U.S. submarine!
Michael,83 U.S.Army-173d Airborne Brigade-‘65-‘71 Vietnam (Honorable Discharge, 14 campaign streamers, 4 unit citations, Purple Heart, & a Distinguished Service Cross)
In Reply to Brian:
Your rebuttal makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Did you even comprehend anything P.A. Madison wrote?
“So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States - that is to say - not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely under its laws.”
Did you miss this part? Born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance”. Like Mexican citizens who enter our country illegally. Did you read the following passage?
“Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.”
The intent of the original framers is that the parents must be in the country legally. Very simple concept.
Throughout the debates, the wording was carefully chosen for the sole purpose of deciding who you are awarded citizenship. The whole purpose of the 14th was to ensure that you were not granted automatic citizenship by the simply being born on U.S. soil. It is very simple, if your parents are not citizens and you have entered the U.S. illegally, then your children are not U.S. citizens.
“This whole thing is silly, because illegal aliens don’t come here to have babies, they come here to take jobs away from Americans. A physical wall with armed enforcement would do more than changing the 14th amendment.”
This statement by you is the most ignorant comment I’ve ever heard! That is exactly why they Hispanics come across our Southern border. Are you going to try and say that the “anchor child” is not a valid concept? Additionally with the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of twenty-one. Do your research before posting such stupid remarks. Without automatic citizenship granted to these “anchor children”, the motivation to sneak across the border and have 5-6 children is lost. There would no longer be the hope that eventually the children could sponsor the illegal family members.
“I’ll tell you right now…I am not a US Citizen because of where my parents were born (they were born in the USA). I am a Citizen because of where I was born!!!”
Exactly why we are even having this discussion. The intent is too make sure that your parents were U.S. citizens before you would be granted citizenship.
“The children have a RIGHT to be here, because they were BORN here. This is THEIR land”
Again, if their parents are not citizens, they do not have a right to be here. That was the primary intent of the original framers of the 14th. What are you just very slow or what? How did it become their land?
So lets say that you were on duty at sea for six months and I moved into your home, then it would become mine because you weren’t there to stop me?
“That’s American Soil. It’s stained with the blood of free Americans who fought so others could be free. Anyone who’s born here should also be a free American.”
I just love this argument! I’m a veteran and I didn’t fight to allow 12 million illegal Hispanics to sneak across our border and pop-out 5-6 children and then be awarded citizenship for their parents criminality.Once again, that is the whole point behind the 14th, they put restrictions on who would be automatically conferred with citizenship.
It is a very simple concept, if you are born here to U.S. citizens, then you are a U.S. citizen. If you are born here to illegal Mexican parents, then you are a Mexican citizen and Mexico is your land, not the U.S.
It is because of idiots like you that we have over 12 million illegal aliens here.
Perhaps I didn’t make clear in my previous post: I am against illegal aliens. I support a physical wall along our border with Mexico. However, I also support the 14th amendment.
PA Madison wrote:
“Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.
Perhaps because he was absolutely correct. “
I agree, but if you’re born on US Soil, you are NOT an alien.
PA Madison repeatedly talks about loyalty being associated with where one was born, which defeats his argument, because if he is correct, people born on US soil to illegal aliens would be loyal to THE UNITED STATES.
This whole thing is silly, because illegal aliens don’t come here to have babies, they come here to take jobs away from Americans. A physical wall with armed enforcement would do more than changing the 14th amendment.
I’ll tell you right now…I am not a US Citizen because of where my parents were born (they were born in the USA). I am a Citizen because of where *I* was born!!!
If a man is convicted of murder, are his children sent to prison also??? I don’t think so!!
The principle in question is that the United States of America is a free country, the most free in the world, and the greatest in all of history. Why would a great and free nation say that people born on land under her control are not also free???
In my opinion, if an illegal alien has children on US soil, and is discovered to be here illegally, she faces a decision: go home alone, or go home with her children. The children have a RIGHT to be here, because they were BORN here. This is THEIR land.
A friend of mine, a Mexican-American who was born here and whose father was born here (although his grandfather was not), and whose father has a purple heart from World War II, said to me, “this is how my dad put it. Take some dirt from over there into your hand. That’s American Soil. It’s stained with the blood of free Americans who fought so others could be free. Anyone who’s born here should also be a free American.”
It is the PARENT who has no right to remain.
Illegal aliens have no more right to be here than I would have a right to be in Mexico without permission of the government down there.
Their children who were born here, however, were born as free Americans, this is their land, and that is how it should be.
They are natural born Americans!!!
—Brian, 30 male, US Navy submarines 1999-2003 (honorable discharge 2003).
In Reply to Aaron - you guys are wasting your time:
Bravo… Excellent on-point intretpretation of the 14 th Amendment. The citizenship clause is often over-broadly interpreted without regard for historical context, “jusridiction”, US and individual states, “due process”, nauturalization law, and expatriation. You clearly pointed out the original intent of the amendment in providing citizenship to slaves and their US born children. Without the 1866 context and evolution of immigration & naturalization laws, it’s easy misinterpret the 14th.
In Reply to Alex:
Talk about ignorance! I seriously hope you are not referring to the United States as ” Mexicans” being here first. Everyone in the whole freakin United States know that it was the NATIVE Americans that were living in the United States”first”. The only reason Mexicans were living here before the early settlers was because they slaughtered thousands of Native Americans for thier land. And the Mexicans were interbreeding with Spainards, yes that even includes Aztecs and it was the spainards that slaughtered thousands of Mexicans, and Aztecs, and raped the women. I would suggest to you that you should pick up a book or even a map! because Arizona is occupied by Navajos, New Mexico is occupied by Apaches, Colorado is occupied by the Utes, and California are occupied by Saboba etc. America was nver the republic of “Mexico” the whole four corners are surrounded by Indian Reservations you idiot! So the next time you decide to get off on someone about “Incorrect Ignorant Facts” I suggest you better get your facts straight first.! By the way it was also the Navajos that fought in the world War 2 ( code talkers) because it the Natives that are the”first american citizens” so it was thier right to fight for thier country.
In Reply to Brian:
Because of the mismanagement of our borders over the last 20 years this invasion of illegal trespassers is impinging on legal Americans rights and benefits. For you to sit there and tell me someone can drop an anchor baby here and then be allowed to reap our benefits that we have paid in to for decades tells me you are a frigging moron!! Let me break into your house and eat from your fridge’, use all the hot water, let me invite my friends in, take you kids clothes and give them to my kids and see how long before you get pissed. Oh yeah, you may cut the grass or flip a burger to help out but we don’t need that. This only helps the business man make more profit to buy a BMW or have a summer home. When one person breaks the rules for personal gain the rest of us pay.
In Pennsylvania, the constitution states that “all men are born equally free and independent,” not born citizens of the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. As far as the term “citizen” in the United States is concerned the court in State v. Manuel 122 N.C. 122 - See 14 Corpus Juris Secundum Sec. 4 states:
“…the term ‘citizen,’ in the United States, is analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law; the CHANGE of phrase has resulted from the CHANGE in government.”
Not many are aware but a “citizen of the United States” is a citizen of the United States federal government which is a foreign corporation with respect to the states.
A “citizen” is a member of a political community who has “submitted himself” to the “dominion” of the government of that political community.
Amendment 14 is dealing with “persons” not men or mankind. All “men” are born equally free and independent. For a man to become a person liable or subject to the government of the United States he must knowingly “submit himself” to the dominion of that government. If he does he is a “subject” and no longer a free and independent sovereign. As such he cannot complain about the government or the debt. To whit:
Amendment 14, Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned….”
“The citizen cannot complain, because he has VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED himself to such a form of government. .. he OWES ALLEGIANCE to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres [i.e. jurisdictions] MUST PAY THE PENALTIES.
Two departments? Executive and Legislative? What happened to the judicial? Are the courts now only administrative courts of the Executive branch?
115 U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) A post 14th amendment Supreme Court case.
If you look at the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union you will see two classes mentioned - the free Citizens IN the state, and the free inhabitants OF the state. Both had the same privileges and immunities but they were different in some way. Perhaps it was the type of “civil rights” they had?
In Constitutional Law we find the following:
“Civil rights” are such as belong to every citizen OF the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are NOT CONNECTED WITH THE ORGANIZATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT. OR, as OTHERWISE DEFINED, civil rights are rights appertaining to a PERSON in virtue of his citizenship IN a State or community. Rights capable of being ENFORCED or redressed in a civil action. ALSO a term applied to to certain rights [really government ascribed rights/privileges] secured to citizens of the United States by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof. State of Iowa v. Railroad Co. C.C.Iowa, 37 F. 498, 3 L.R.A. 554 Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, page 1487
There appears to be “free Citizens OF the state” and “subject/citizens IN the state” The former has no allegiance to the government of the political community, the latter is subject to all its laws.
Aliens, owe a local allegiance only during their temporary or permanent residence “in the state” or particular territory under the jurisdiction of the government of the state.
Domicile and residence are not synonymous terms.
“That means legislative “intent” is largely irrelevant to me—we don’t apply the intended law, we apply the law that was actually passed.”
This is a nonsense application of the phrase “original intent.” The phrase has nothing to do with the law that was “intended” but rather with the intent of the law. Original intent does not concern itself with what a legislative body began with only to ignore what it ended with.
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Interesting to find Bingham stating natural born citizens are defined by the allegiance of the parents. This actually makes more sense then linking natural born with native born.
American law for most of our history recognized any person born of an American father in another country to be an natural born American citizen. So if mere presence on foreign soil had no bearing on the matter, why does some think it would in this country?
Very strange.
In Reply to Zeebo: As federal statutes have long recognized, you can be within the jurisdiction but not a subject of the jurisdiction. I am subject to jurisdiction of the United States because I can be compelled to go to Iraq, but an alien cannot be compelled to enter the service and shipped off to Iraq.
I reside within the jurisdiction of several judicial courts, yet I am not the subject of either. Only through process of law can I be made a subject of either jurisdiction… its not an automatic claim.
Why do you say that “subject to” is any stricter than “under?” I don’t think that is supported by the context you’ve provided.
At any rate, you seem to support the notion that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is somehow rendered superfluous or redundant if it grants citizenship to anyone born here. But that’s not the case. This clause clearly exempted Indians (who didn’t gain automatic citizenship until 1924), and still exempts children born to diplomats serving here because those people weren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction, by and large. Someone living in the U.S. is.
I would have no problem if we decide to change the law to explicitly exclude children born to illegal aliens. But we should accomplish that by changing the law, not by a court decision that gives a new meaning to the 14th Amendment. And make no mistake, it would be a new meaning. Congress has had 110 years to correct the Supreme Court’s reading of the 14th Amendment, and hasn’t done so. Changing it now in the courts would simply be another example of rule by judicial fiat.
Anyway, I enjoy the discussion. :)
Z
In Reply to Zeebo:
Well, even if you do not want to look at intent you still have to explore the meaning on the words in the context used. First and subsequent naturalization laws never recognized persons within the limits of the United States as automatically being under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Title XXX: “Any alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…”
This implies being within the limits of the United States does not automatically translate to being under the jurisdiction of the United States. The 14th amendment goes further, it demands persons to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not under or within.
So saying jurisdiction means merely presence would run counter to how the word was used in federal statutes since the adoption of the constitution. A dictionary meaning has to be read in the context of federal jurisdiction over people within a state as far as federal jurisdiction is defined, or withheld, under the Constitution.
I consider myself an originalist, like Justice Scalia. That means legislative “intent” is largely irrelevant to me—we don’t apply the intended law, we apply the law that was actually passed. We apply the text. If we want to know what ‘jurisdiction’ meant in 1866, if it is the least bit confusing or unclear, we should look it up in a dictionary from that era and then give the term its fairest, plainest meaning.
We don’t need to run around consulting floor debate or correspondence between Senators in this case, anymore than we need to do that with any other law. That’s how we get activist decisions.
Just my two cents.
Zeebo
In Reply to Alex:
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo did not cede any of Mexico’s territory over to the United States in return for recognition of human rights, land ownership, and respect for language and culture.
Mexico sold its claims to the US for $15,000,000 as it tried to do before the war. Mexico only claimed the territory for a brief period of time. When California became a state it only recognized “white Mexicans” of european dissent in its constitution.
Mexican citizens in Calif. did not automatically become citizens of the United States, they had to elect to become. Most returned to Mexico, leaving only established land holders to elect to become US citizens.
I have to disagree, respectfully, with Doris. If anything is clear, it is that she is ignorant of a lot of facts, both in geographical and historical terms. “Mexicans” born in the U.S. or Mexican- Americans who have been here for more than six (6)generations are U.S. citizens. I say (6) generations because that would bring us close to approximately 1848, the year the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, it signaled the end of the Mexican American war, and it ceded much of Mexico’s territoy over to the United States, in return for recognition of human rights, land ownership, and respect for language and culture. Doris- please pay attention to this: The treaty that was signed, between the two “war-ing” nations also gave automatic United States Citizenship to Mexicans north of the rio Grande- The Treaty was signed in 1848…you used 1866 as some sort of reference to the Civil War, with some to slavery and the childrens of slaves. Again, this would be incorect. Your statement about some lack of invitation towards Mexicans, to come here, borders on both xenophobia, and abject ignorance of the geopolitical situation in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, parts of Colorado and Utah, all of which were under the Domain of the Republic of Mexico, since it’s independence from Spain- Mexican War of Independence(1810-1821). Without going in to too much detail…. Mexicans were here “First”, before white settlers moved WEST, in the name of “Manifest Destiny”. If there was ever a term for “Illegal Aliens”…’Folks’ who as Doris put it (No one forced the ** to come here, nor did we invite or welcome them) …”it would certainly fit a people from a foreign place, wanting to appropriate land through extralegal means, including “warfare”, in the magnitude and scale of theft that has hardly ever been repeated in ‘World History’. So Doris, understand this: Not all Mexicans are illegal aliens. Mexican Americans have fought side by side next to white Americans since the Second World War- Korean War- Vietnam, and especially now in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are American Citizens, and have been since 1848. Many of whom are not only citizens, but even more patriotic, than the likes of you Doris, because I seriously doubt that you have ever enlisted in the U.S. armed forces, I assume this becuase of your uneducated banter. And by the way Mexican Americans pay Federal, State and City Taxes, like everyone else. Please pick up a book sometime, and do not rely exclusively on the FOX Network for all your facts, as that, may make you grow bitter, and even more ignorant.
And what if you believe that you have allegiance to God. A foreign soveriegnty?
In Reply to all: What P.A Madison didn’t point out in this article, that you all are debating over, is that the current way the USFG interprets the 14th amendment, makes the amendment out to be redundant.
Let me break it down for you guys. The wording is as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” Let’s rewind and look at “born or naturlized in the US.” the way we currently look at it now in the US is as follows. Everyone here born on US soil is a citizen of the US, period.
Now let’s fast forward to “and…” Why put ‘and’ here if they already knew that the non-citizens and citizens alike were under the US jurisdiction? See how the USFG has made the 14th amendment redundant.
The correct interpretation of the 14th amendment is under the way P.A. Madison defined it. It really wasn’t him at all either, it was the co-authors of the amendment.
The way you can correctly interpret this amendment is by looking through the binoculars of proper context and historical background. There was no such thing as an ‘illegal alien’ back then, but the co-authors still grasped the concept to reject people like them by wording the amendment the way they did.
No learned man at that time would have put a redundant clause in a federal law. Unless the clause wasn’t redundant but in fact establishing a greater truth about citizenship. That truth is consentualism between the government and the person. remember the founding fathers made sure to establish this and the co-authors of the 14th amendment upheld that turth in the amendment. ‘Subjects’ (the crown’s view of ‘citizens’) had a perpetual allegiance to the throne (by way of jus soli) by mere place of birth. The US’ view of citizenship not subjectship was based on the consent of the governed, meaning you must renounce all other allegiances to any other foreign power to become a citizen of the US and the US has to accept your allegiance. That is the basis behind consentualism.
That’s why it is so essential to look at the expatriation act when trying to understand anything about citizenship. The way the USFG looks at citizenship currently is a total 180 of historical precedent. We hold more to the throne’s viewpoint on ‘subjectship’ rather than the founders viewpoint on ‘citizenship’ by arbitrarily and perpetually giving citizenship to the babies who hold allegiance to their parents who hold allegiance to their foreign governments with no way to stop the perpetual cycle.
to help you understand Brian look at it this way. It’s a chain of command. The lowest person is the child of the family, the highest person is the USFG. The chain is as follows: A baby born is subject to their parents; the parents are subject to the State in which they reside; the State is subject to the USFG. You cannot deny this fact. This is the crux of any argument of the advocates who argue for automatic birthright citizenship: The baby has allegiance to their family and their family has allegiance to their foreign government because they have not officially (through law) renounced their (meaning parents) citizenship.
I hope this distilled the arguments you had and it gave a better understanding from where P.A. Madison is coming from.
In Reply to Brian:
“The author of this post is wrong to imply that where your parents came from has any effect on your citizenship.”
Came from? There was no impression that it mattered where “parents came from.” Howard, Trumbull and Bingham stated it was the allegiance that mattered, and even a partial allegiance to another government didn’t qualify.
Lay off the crack, dude.
Well, I too am against illegal aliens. But certainly NOT Mexican-Americans who were born here or immigrated legally. Those are Americans.
The author of this post is wrong to imply that where your parents came from has any effect on your citizenship.
The only way you could be born within the borders of the United States and not be subject to its jurisdiction is if you were born land which is subject to someone else’s jursidiction. So where would that be? A FOREIGN EMBASSY.
For example, if your mother is about to give birth to you, and she steps onto the Mexican Embassy in Los Angeles, California, and you are born at that embassy, you’re not automatically an American citizen.
If an illegal alien sets foot on American soil and their baby is born here, that baby IS AND SHOULD BE an American citizen.
Some of you guys should think about what you’re saying:
How could you possibly think that someone born to illegal aliens on American soil is not subject to American jurisdiction? If that were the case, we couldn’t deport the parent for being an illegal alien!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if they aren’t subject to our jurisdiction, that also means our laws don’t apply to them!!!!
by the logic some of you are using, if someone was born to foreign tourists on US soil, who are here legally but not citizens, the child wouldn’t be a US citizen, because their parents on not citizens. That’s stupid.
ok, have you seen the show Jericho on CBS? In that show, American traitors set off nuclear weapons, destroying many major US cities (DC was nuked, but NYC stopped the nuke). The Vice President became the President, but a senator from a Flyover State claimed himself to be the president and formed a rival country, The Allied States of America, consisting of all states west of the Mississippi. This rival country is a dictatorship that takes away the 2nd amendment and executes people randomly for unjust reasons. The original USA remained with the eastern states. Texas observed all this and decided to be neutral and a separate country. A CIA guy had tried to stop the attack but was unsuccessful; he had penetrated the group of traitors undercover and was given a nuke but of course refused to set his off because he was a good guy. The CIA guy and Jake, the dude who drove trucks in Iraq, deliver the suitcase nuke to the Texas embassy, to prove that the bomb came from Russia and that the nuclear blasts in that show were set off by American traitors and not Iran. Jake says “my friend has been shot, we need medical assistance. we seek political asylum” and the Texas Army National Guard guy says “this is not a hospital, this is SOVEREIGN TEXAS SOIL!”
Point being, if you’re born on SOVEREIGN AMERICAN SOIL, you’re an American.
The framers of the 14th amendment put in the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to make it clear that if you’re at the Mexican embassy AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO AMERICAN JURISDICTION, you would not be an American.
But anyone who is born within the borders of the United States, and not on a foreign embassy or on international jurisdiction (such as the United Nations building), is an American. Also, if you’re born in international waters, or in the air above international waters, on a US Navy commissioned vessel, or a civilian ship flying the US flag (registered in the USA), or an aircraft registered in the United States, you’re still on US soil.
That’s how it should be, because we a free country, and no one born here should be subject to foreign tyranny. Long live the American Revolution!!!
—Brian (us navy submarines vet 1999-2003)
To me, it is quite clear that this law was not written to become a “blanket policy”. It was written in 1866 just after the end of the Civil War. This was written to insure that former slaves and their children would be American Citizens, and rightly so. The slaves were brought to America against their will. No one forced the Mexicans to come here, nor did we invite or welcome them (except maybe for big business). They came here ILLEGALLY and are continuing to do so. They do not deserve to be American Citizens (ANY FORM OF AMNESTY!) nor should their children be considered American Citizens. We, the American citizens are being penalized, while the illegals are being rewarded! I for one am VERY PO’D at having to foot their bills, ie. food stamps, the VERY COSTLY education of their usually VERY LARGE FAMILIES, and their medical care! There are literally millions of TRUE AMERICAN CITIZENS, the people who built this country, the middle class, the backbone of this country who cannot afford medical insurance, but the US hospitals cannot deny medical care to any illegals or they can face a HUGE FINE! They can turn away a LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZEN who is uninsured. Also the Constitution grants the right to a peaceful protest to LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS. What right do these ILLEGALS have to be out in our streets protesting and waving their Mexican flags! As I see it, they have added NOTHING to OUR COUNTRY. They are “bleeding” the American taxpayers who are already barely keeping our heads above water with increasing home heating costs, gasoline costs, and rising food costs. The only people benefitting from their being here is BIG BUSINESS! The home foreclosures in this country are horrendous! Who does the government bail out, the banks, of course! The very institutions who caused this problem. What our government has done to stop illegal immigration amounts to trying to put out a house fire with a garden watering can! Wake up all of you sympathizers, your children will have to bear even more of a burden than we are facing now!
In Reply to LM David:
Right on David. This is a misguided law and should be amended to insure that only Legal Citizens children have that right.
In Reply to Donna:
Donna, you are very correct when you say we must speak out loud and often on the subject of illegal immigration and the custom of granting citizenship to nearly every newborn.
Finding your voice and using it is a civic responsibility and a requirement for participating it a democracy to keep it vital and meaningful.
jeff in ct
In Reply to Manny:
Manny,
I too believed that the U.S. Constitution applied and offers its benefits and safeguards to citizens only. In recent years, I have even thought it also includes those persons here with legal status, meaning persons who entered the country legally and in the process of becoming a permanent resident or naturalized citizen.
I never would have dreamed that a sense of entitlement be granted to anyone, especially here without legal status, to share and get the same rights and privileges as citizens and maybe those here with legal status.
I mean what’s the point if you basically say that if you are within the borders of the continental U.S. or it’s possessions, you qualify for full protection and enjoy all rights. There woud seem to be no distinction between a visitor or resident and a citizen!
I would like to think there is a difference but it seems that the prevalent view among lawmakers is that all persons in our country are owed civil rights and liberties same as citizens!
Is this your take too? I would love to converse with a legal scholar and Constitutional expert to answer this question in the context of Today’s culture and society.
Do you think a resident in the United States, not here with legal status, is protected by the Constitution and entitled to its benefits?
Jeff
Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, made the most precise statement about the character of the limitation contained in the “jurisdiction” clause:
“[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been agreat desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Well, after reading all of the comments, I am convinced that children of illegals are not citizens under any law, and to be a citizen of the USA, you have to be first a citizen (recognized) as a citizen of a state. I dont think any states recognizes people here illegally as citizens and birthright is determined by the citizenship of the father, and then mother in case of fathers death>
So, please explain this statement…. A certificate is a “paper establishing an ownership claim.” - Barron’s Dictionary of Banking Terms. Registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.
Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called “warehouse receipts.” The items included on a warehouse receipt, as descried at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:
-the location of the warehouse where the goods are stored…(residence)
-the date of issue of the receipt…..(“Date issued”)
-the consecutive number of the receipt…(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)
-a description of the goods or of the packages containing them…(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)
-the signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent…(municipal clerk or state registrar’s signature)
Birth/marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as “warehouse receipts” under the Uniform Commercial Code. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:
warehouse receipt. “…A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security.”
Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated “warehouse receipts” for births and marriages in order to pledge us as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve’s banks. The “Full faith and Credit” of the American people is said to be that which back the nation’s debt. That simply means the American people’s ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - “human resources,” that is.
Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens began on July 14, 1862 when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a “per head” basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle?) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.
Any child born to Mexican citizens abroad is a Mexican citizen.
I want to thank you all for giving me this unique opportunity of reading the most intelligent and most respectful blog ever found on the net. That being said, here is my only query: Is the new born child (in US from Mexican parents) also citizen of the Mexican State and of Mexico itself?
Everyone, not just on this site, and including law websites, have missed the most important section of the U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, states in part, “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not to exeed ten Miles square..) (this would also include territories or the property that houses a fort or arsenal). They can only legislate (make laws) for that district only. Not in the 50 states. The district is called the UNITED STATES. The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear, if you were born in the UNITED STATES you are a U. S. citizen and if that same citizen lives in one of the 50 states, they are also a citizen of that state. What the amendment does not cite is, if you are born in one of the 50 states you are a Citizen of that state only. The reason this is not cited is because the Constitution only deals with federal situations in the ten Mile square district. I have found that all federal statutes (laws) are written perfectly as long as you keep in mind their lawful area of jurisdiction. If you were born in one of the 50 states, you are not lawfully a U. S. citizen, and if you have erroneously claimed to be a U. S. citizen you have committed a federal crime. Read Title 18, part 1, chapter 43, sec. 911 of the U S Code. How many People have made this mistake? The federal govt. forces the People to claim U. S. citizenship by requiring the states to require Driver Licenses for U. S. citizens. Licensing of any type is not required of Private state Citizens (the People). Do the research and you will agree. The People are free! U. S. citizens are slaves.
Quote ‘What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means’
It means you are subject to the jurisdiction there of as opposed to living outside of the law like the illegal invaders do.
Unfortunately, this is only ONE of the immigration issues that has been swept under the rug for too long. I think that the way our government has handled the illegals in this country….PERIOD….is deplorable. I say the “anchor baby” and the illegal parent should be deported as soon as its’ born, with their hospital bill in THEIR hands, not ours. Too many border town doctors have been reporting that a pregnant woman, never seen in the USA before, suddenly shows up, in labor….and the babies are born within our borders. When I can stand in El Paso, TX, and throw a rock into Juarez, Mexico….without any visible fence….I think we’ve seen enough political leniency here people. I’m all for….DEbunk the lies, DEport the illegals, DEtoxify our society, DEny amnesty, DErail anything other than enforcement, DEfend our constitution! Personally, I’m FOR all the Mexican lovers to get deported to Mexico as well! Bye bye to ACLU and BUSH! Or, should I say “Adios”????
I agree!
My Dear Friends in Freedom:
The web discussion on this issue is quite interesting, and whether or not the framers of the Constitution or the authors of the 14th Amendment used or did not use common law as their guide is not relevant. What is important is that the language used must be understood by us as being the “common” expressions of that day based upon the National and Political environment of the times. Let us not get into challenging the wisdom or the merits of a very long debate and the legislative discussions that occurred in the mid 1860’s, especially since it was conducted by men who were very learned about things such as the law and the difficult chore of ending not only slavery, but addressing involuntary servitude, civil rights, voting rights and a host of other issues that were necessary for the granting of citizenship and sufferage to millions of black human beings….who were now Citizens of the United States.
Let us also remember that when the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and other such “liberating” amendments and Statutes were passed, there were a number of Southern States that had yet not been readmitted to the Union and for good reason. Many State Constitutions still held that blacks were slaves and property and that before they could be readmitted, such language had to be removed. Several more reluctant States required the use of Military Commisioners to ensure that their State Constitution met the Federal Standard.
There are many people today who choose to wear blinders when interpreting the 14th Amendment and then there are those who understand the ralationship between the authors of the 14th Amendment and the history that was taking place right before their eyes.
To be sure, the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, as well as the 13th, 15th and 16th amendments reflect that the term “persons” more often than not meant citizen and that it also meant a deliberate elevation of the black people from their former self re slaves and property….to full human “persons” and subsequently “citizens” of the United States.
No one has yet been able to show me a Court decision based on a law passed by the Congress of the United States that clearly states that children born of Illegal Alien parents are Citizens of the United States. Past practice, as is the case and the argument used to bestow citizenship on anchor babies by the ignorant and the revisionist history buffs of today….is not in the Constitution, or provided for by any law passed by the Congress or supported by any Court decision that was based upon any law passed by Congress. Let’s remember the makeup of our system of government. The Legislative Branch makes the laws….the Executive enforces the laws….and the Judiciary interprets the laws….and the laws flow from our Constitution and when they become laws are codified. SHOW ME THE ANCHOR BABY LAW THAT DOES WHAT ONLY THE IGNORANT AND THE REVISIONIST CLAIM….GIVES AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP TO THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIEN PARENTS. SHOW ME THE LAW!!!
ANCHOR BABY CITIZENSHIP IS WISHFUL THINKING ON THE PART OF THE PRO-ILLEGAL ADVOCATES, PANDERING POLITICIANS SEEKING CURRENT AND FUTURE VOTES, FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WHO BENEFIT FROM THIS CONCEPT OF HEMISPHERIC AND SOON TO BE GLOBAL WELFARE, FAILED RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, NOT-FOR-PROFITS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE WHO SEEM TO PROFIT VERY WELL AND THE ELITE WHOSE FORTUNES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MADE ON THE BACKS OF THE ENSLAVED IGNORANT AND THOSE WILLING TO ACCEPT AND EMPLOY THE USE OF SLAVERY REGARDLESS OF THE HUMAN COSTS AND SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONSEQUENCES OR THE COLOR OF SKIN.
If one wishes to make a collateral argument….take but a moment to read the wording of the 13th Amendment and then ask yourself if our own government, by granting public services and benefits to Illegal aliens…isn’t in fact subjecting American tax payers to “Involuntary Servitude” in order to pay for the services and benefits being enjoyed by 38 million Illegal Aliens who are not legally present in the United States.
CAN WE SUE THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR USING OUR MONEY TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICES AND BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION? CAN WE HAVE THEM REMOVED OR RECALLED FROM OFFICE FOR SUBJECTING US TO A 13TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION AND HOLD THEM SUBJECT TO THE LAWS AGAINST PERJURY BECAUSE THEY DISOBEY THEIR SWORN OATH?
I know one thing for certain. Our founding Fathers did not sacrifice life, limb, family and fortune to ensure that the representatives of the people could undo the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law in order to reward illegal actions and behavior.
They certainly did not intend that our most treasured national possession….CITIZENSHIP….was going to be tossed around as though it were a carnival prize at a side show.
God bless America.
Paul Revere in Arizona -
Boxer’s reply is a perfect example of why Quislings in office should be recalled and replaced! Before its too late. Sanctuary Cities are balkanized Outlaw Cities by definition, where the U.S. Rule of Law does not apply! We are all Minutemen Now!
OMG…..we all know it was not correct….we all know Our founding fathers were not that stupid….and we all know that we have to fight the current agenda…so how do we do it? I don’t feel that just because you were born here 48 hours before the your parent got here makes you a citizen and that you are legal. We must fight…..or our sons and daughters are burdened to deal with the burgeoned ILLEGAL residence to deal it…so it beyond our scope?…do we leave it to our children? Fight now and maybe we can reverse the trend…..do our legislatures care more about THEM or us?…Who actually has more impact…I think we have to cry LOUDLY and OFTEN….we can make the changes that are needed if we presever….
Additional questions for thought: [1] if the US, or states are fictional political entities, how/why can one’s place of physical birth ‘automatically’ make him a citizen thereof? [2] What happened to the people of 7/4/1776 who did not accept the US constitution? Were/are they non-citizens? [3] ‘Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419’ opined that all the people were politically equal [‘joint tenants in the sovereignty’] on 7/4/1776, What authority did the creators of the Constitution have to make or require anyone born here then or now come under the govt authority [state or federal]?
I tend to agree, Win. How can being born on land alleged to belong to a fictional government entity automatically make a human being “subject to the jurisdiction” of that entity, unless the human being volunteered into the jurisdiction of it? I don’t think it can!
It seems to me, that no human being can be born “IN” a political fiction, such as the United States or the State of Missouri. This alone nullifies the first section of the 14th A.
Additionally, the 14th A. makes “citizens” responsible for the debt, a condition of slavery [if one is a citizen]. Lysander Spooner made it clear that even though the “founders” drew up a constitution, it was impossible for these men to make all the People in the 13 colonies come under that document.
Thus there are many human beings living on this land who are of the former posterity and are neither citizens (.) nor aliens [legal or illegal].
The US, being a fictional political entity [not existing in nature], is similar to the Boy Scouts. To be born “in” the US doesn’t make one a citizen anymore than the birth of a girl in a Boy Scout camp makes her a Boy Scout.
i think the most telling thing is that the constitution applies to citizens of the united states and no others. so how can it give citizenship to a non citizen? our U.S. laws apply to anyone here in the U.S. but the two are separate and distinct. that’s the most simplistic way i can think to put it. it follows with the 2nd amendments misinterpretation that they would get this wrong too. too many people miss that you have to think of what was happening at the time the document was written to get a true understanding as to what was meant. superior point. now we need to keep the pressure on our government to make them enforce our constitution.
How can anyone assume people carrying Mexican flags at the anti-deportation rallies “Not owing allegiance..” to be under the jurisdiction of the United States?
Since many of them were school age kids, perhaps they should have their parents explain exactly why they went to the trouble to enter this country illegally…
If they want the USA to be like their “lovely” Mexico then we should give them what they want… No jobs, no money, no health care, no education, no NOTHING… AND, absolutely no citizenship…
Dianne said: “Prior to 1866, it was generally held that under the common law principle of jus soli, a person born in the United States acquired citizenship at birth.”
Will Dianne point us to this documented, generally held principle that anyone born in the United States acquired citizenship by birth prior to 1866?
Like the true liberal goon she is, she won’t be able to back up her rhetoric with facts.
The elitist politicians know full well what “Subject to the Jurisdiction” means but choose to ignore it. They continually pander to the illegal alien lobby. I presented this exact case to Senator Dianne “never saw an amnesty I didn’t like” Feinstein. This is how she responds:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about children born in the United States receiving automatic citizenship. I welcome the opportunity to respond.
I can appreciate your concerns with the growing costs of illegal immigration. However, all people who are born in the United States are automatically granted United States citizenship. Prior to 1866, it was generally held that under the common law principle of jus soli, a person born in the United States acquired citizenship at birth. This principle was incorporated into the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, and, two years later was explicitly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. There is currently no legislation before Congress which would restrict citizenship to children whose parents are U.S. citizens. Please know that I will keep your views in mind should the Senate consider legislation on this issue. Again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841. Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein United States Senator
Well thank God there is no legislation before the congress that “would restrict citizenship to children whose parents are U.S. citizens.” because she would probably vote for it in favor of giving citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens.
Sadly she is wrong on all accounts. The 14th amendment does NOT recognize jus soli. With idiots like this in our congress no wonder we have a problem.
vcif, DC inherited Maryland’s laws upon creation. Maryland at the time did not recognize blacks as citizens whether they were free or not. The District of Columbia had black codes. Someone has pointed out that to get down to the actual nitty gritty of birthright laws one needs to look at the birth registration law for how children were classified based upon their parents residency/citizenship. I am pretty certain in Calif. the father had to be a American citizen after the adoption of the 14th.
(Paul, am I correct about Calif.?)
There are some (not so) simple questions which seem unanswered.
DC was created by the constitution with exclusive legislative power by congress. The constitution applies to the Citizens of the several states. The “rights” of people in the federal zone, such as DC, are statutory and under the exclusive power of congress (just ask alberto).
1)Before 1866 what was the citizenship of someone born in DC?
2)The 14th amendment says “…are citizens … of the state wherein they reside…”. That should have been all that needed to be said in order to accomplish the goal of providing ex-slaves with all the rights of free men. Why all the extraneous language?
It seems that the Constitution’s framers purposely made the document ambiguous in order to allow future expansion of the federal government as their true monarchist/nationalist tendencies could not be manifested immediately.
It also seems that all of the scotus and other arguments about the 14th amendment are superfluous. “No bills of attainder” specifically and unequivicolly prohibits any law discriminating against any person or group of people by government. This is the true argument against discrimination against a fictitious classification of humans (eg black white…), not some mangled reading or writing about statutory (man-made) rights. Rights are inherent in the human. That’s where rights start and end.
The problems we have now regarding the 14th amendment exist mostly because it should never have been written as such. If scotus wanted to do things right they could have affirmed that “all men are created equal” means just what it says.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to accept the leftist’s version of “subject to the jurisdiction” as solely intended to address ambassadors and foreign ministers. It was universally accepted ambassadors and foreign ministers were under jus soli excluded, so in my mind there is no logic in singling them out. A simple statement that “all persons born in the United States are citizens thereof” is more than sufficient. This language had a purpose beyond addressing ambassadors and foreign ministers else, they would not have used it. Seems to me these guys were pretty clear what they sought to accomplish with this language: citizenship to those who were qualified to come completely under United States laws. That would require pledging allegiance to the United States as already spelled out by national law.
Excellent article. It is now time to revisit the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens in the U.S.
More information on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship is at http://www.14thamendment.us
Boy I dunno… on one hand many argue the amendment only requires a temporary obedience to the laws but this has always bugged me because most these days who receive birthright their parents violated the law to to be here, and continue to violate it after. Hardly obedience of the laws if you ask me.
Requiring that parents not owe any other government allegiance pretty much proves the supreme court was 100% wrong. It is surprising there is fools who claim to be lawyers agree with the common law view.
Amazing what fools believe today in the face of the amount of evidence that they are wrong.