What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means
by P.A. Madison on September 22nd, 2007
Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all United States 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. in any State they ventured into. 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 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. The reason for this is because the authority remained with each State to make rules that distinguished alien from citizen.
Madison made it clear rules of who is a citizen or alien properly belonged with each State when addressing a contested South Carolina Election of Rep. William Smith in the House of Representatives in 1794. 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.
After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. In England at the time, the general rule – not a hard rule since could be suspended when required by the King – every person born within the Kings allegiance and within any of the King’s realms or dominions was considered a natural born subject under the maxim every man owes natural allegiance to the King whom may have been born in any of his realms or dominions. 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).
In early America, the common law rule of “natural allegiance” was discarded as well as the rule of automatic citizenship to children born to aliens regardless of their condition. Other differences that differed from the common law were the general rule children born to transient aliens or temporary sojourners remained alien. Early states also required aliens who desired to become domiciled within their limits to first renounce any allegiances to other governments and pledge their allegiance solely to the State. Therefore, a child born to domiciled alien parents was “born within the allegiance” of the State even if the parents had not yet been naturalized would be considered a citizen of the State and a United States citizen.
Moreover, 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 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 automatic citizenship of children born to “transient aliens” by statute. *
Conceivably, Congress could had from the beginning attempted to include a defined local birthright rule – 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 their 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 worthies to become part of our society. And more importantly, those willing to renounce all prior allegiances to their country of origin and swear exclusive fidelity to this one.
Paupers, vagabonds and imperialist were universally despised.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only 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 but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, 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 alien, 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 debates 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.”
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “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.
A common mischaracterization of the debates says Senators Trumbull, Cowan and Conness suggested both the Civil Rights Bill and the Fourteenth Amendment would make children born to Chinese or Mongolian parent’s citizens regardless of the condition of the parents. However, this is an erroneous conclusion because they were discussing concerns over whether “race” of the parents could play a role. They were not suggesting locality of birth alone was to be the sole requirement of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, this discussion appeared before the chief authors, Senators Lyman and Howard, provided the proper intended operation of the language.
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 than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide 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.
In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. As will be explained shortly, only acts under the laws of naturalization can remove an alien’s allegiance to some other country under United States law.
Additionally, Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties. This is also exactly how the United States deals with aliens from other nations as well; they enter into treaties with other countries to define legal rights of their citizens while within the limits of the United States and vice versa. Example: A treaty with China prohibited the United States from naturalizing Chinese citizens.
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. Trumbull further restates 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 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.
Sen. Howard introduced the clause as excluding “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.”
Many mistakes Howard’s above commentary as suggesting he was speaking only of persons who may have been foreigners or alien who belonged to “families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” For one thing, members of families of ambassadors or foreign ministers where never referred to as foreigners or aliens, so these remarks must be read as persons who are foreigners or alien and persons who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, i.e., he is speaking of three distinct persons rather than making a single distinction centered around ambassadors or foreign ministers.
Sen. Jacob Howard goes on to reinforce this conclusion by telling us the class of persons that falls under the jurisdiction:
[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.
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 voluntary 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 bona fide residents 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 regard to children born of aliens because New York had no laws on the subject at the time.
Additionally, the District of Columbia, 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. 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.”
Such State laws were not contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment for the simple reason they merely deny citizenship to those born whom another sovereign claims as its own, i.e., denial of citizenship to those born owing allegiance to another sovereign conforms with the constitutional definition given to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General – who was a Senator during the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause debates – 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.
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.
* The phrase “transient aliens” was generally used to refer to aliens other than “domiciled aliens” who had taken their oath of allegiance and other requirements who were citizens or subjects of another country who could be in the country for any number of reasons, such as a stopover on an international trip, school, work, etc., who had no intent of becoming citizens or were unable to by law or treaty.
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)
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.
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.
And what if you believe that you have allegiance to God. A foreign soveriegnty?
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.
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 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 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.
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: 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.
“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.”Â
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.
“That means legislative “intent” is largely irrelevant to me”â€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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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.”Â
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.
Oh, I forgot, what is up with this:
“â€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)
“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!!!”Â
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-“Ëœ65-“Ëœ71 Vietnam (Honorable Discharge, 14 campaign streamers, 4 unit citations, Purple Heart, & a Distinguished Service Cross)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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: 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.
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 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, “Ëœand subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins.”Â
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 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 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.”
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 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 jeff: We are not a democracy. The U.S. is a Republic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Go back to Mexico and have a real revolution. Stop living in the 18th century.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I agree, law regarding the birth right of citizenship to the foreign Place…..And also thanks for this nice article…..
————-‘
johnsmith
Reverse Mortgages