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.
I actually think the quote by Sen Jacob Howard doesn’t support, and in fact argues against what this article is arguing.
“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.”
“foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors ….”
Is that 3 different classes Sen Howard is listing, or 3 adjectives for the same class? Michael Anton, when quoting this, inserted in brackets [or] right after “aliens,”
The or would serve to separate those 3 into a list which supports his position. But without the “[or],” one can read that as Sen Howard just listing one class, but describing the class in 3 different ways.
“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.”
I read this as as two classes. The first class “who are foreigners, aliens”, and the second class “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States”.
It’s really only one class of people. “…aliens, foreigners, who belong to ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the Unites States…”. So if an ambassador had a baby born in the US, the baby would not be a citizen because clearly an ambassador owes allegiance to another country.
Howard is clearly talking about “persons” in three distinct sub-groups: Aliens, foreigners and diplomat personnel. Those “transient alien” laws are interesting because that demonstrates place of birth was never considered to be the sole rule for granting citizenship and thus proving the common law feudal rule of citizenship never survived in this country.
They are all one class: persons not owing allegiance to the United States.
MickeyG: Back in the late 1980’s to early 90’s that was the prominent thinking among the conspiracy theorists. I, was among them. Since then I have come across irrefutable facts that dispel this notion. In the Supreme Court decision of Hooven and Allison v. Evatt , 324 U.S. 652 on page 671:
“The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the Collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”
Where did Mr. Chief Justice Stone get this information? Footnote #6 from page 672 supplies us this information:
[ Footnote 6 ] See Langdell, ‘The Status of our New Territories’, 12 Harv.L.Rev. 365, 371; see also Thayer, ‘Our New Possessions’, 12 Harv.L.Rev. 464; Thayer, ‘The Insular Tariff Cases in the Supreme Court’, 15 Harv.L.Rev. 164; Littlefield, ‘The Insular Cases’, 15 Harv.L.Rev. 169, 281.
Langdell, as well as Thayer and Littlefield are excellent reads. Langdell stresses that the meaning of the term “United States’ in the 14th Amendment can only be in its original sense, ie. the Union or as more commonly known “The United States of America”. That today consists of the 50 States of the Union and Washington D.C.
The Slaughterhouse cases and the Kim Wong Ark case are just so much dicta.
Enjoy your research and reading.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was proposed by John Bingham, who stated the premise and intent for it in Congress assembled prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The Amendment itself was basically illegal because its “overall” intent was to cancel the inalienable right of the States, under the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to their sovereignty and reserved powers not delegated specifically to the federal government.
Yet, since the citizenship clause, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, was regarded as law after 1865, every jot and tittle of the clause should be regarded as law, according to the Congressional intent of the Amendment. The collective intent of the clause was that the parentage of the citizens be regarded as the basis for the citizenship of children becoming citizens of the USA. If someone sneaks across the U.S. border, any border, and is an illegal alien, per U.S. statute, and is still under the jurisdiction of the country from which he originated, any children born to him, or her, are not citizens of the USA by birth. Conversely, if a person from any other country applies for a U.S. visa and is given one for a particular period of time, that person is under the jurisdiction of the United States for the time he, or she, is inside the republic. So, any child born to that person during the lawfully permitted time inside the USA is a citizen of the USA by birth. If, perhaps, the visa expires and the person becomes an illegal alien, then any child born to that person is not a citizen. I believe the intent of that first sentence is very clear. It is all about allegiance to the USA. An illegal alien who is in the USA illegally has only an allegiance to his, or her, country of origin, since that person has shown no regard, or respect, for the laws of the USA. A person who enters the country legally for the purpose of naturalization shows respect for the U.S. Constitution, and is under the jurisdiction of the USA while going through the process of naturalization.
Before the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Statute of 1792 imposed the restriction that “only” children of citizens of the USA (mothers and fathers of those children) born to those citizens outside of the USA were natural born citizens of the USA. Hence, a child born to a U.S citizen mother and a French citizen father in France was not a natural born U.S citizen. This, I believe, is the natural born citizenship stipulation for U.S. presidential eligibility imposed by the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th Amendment citizenship clause was dealing with ordinary citizenship, either by birth or naturalization. Hence, an alien who is not legally inside the USA is not capable of bearing children who are citizens of the USA. A person has to be under the jurisdiction of the USA at the time children are born to that person for those children to be regarded as U.S. citizens by birth.
Madison means “domestic” birthright rule, not Naturalization or outside of the U.S. rules.
As a descendent of those whom have fought for independence and to preserve the union, I speak for my ancestors when I say follow the intention of the amendment. To use this amendment in order to change the very culture of our nation is an exercise in evil. Now is the time to either preserve the nation or destroy it. Former POTUS Eisenhower was able to give us some breathing room and a temporary respite but here we are again standing at the same precipice just exponentially larger.
In the discussion above Anonymous claims “The Supreme Court has weighed in on the meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’” – he then concludes that the Court essentially said that anchor-babies are not citizens.
Whether Anonymous knows it or not he is quoting Elk v. Wilkins (1884) in which the court ruled that an Indian born on a reservation is not a citizen by right of birth. BTW, the exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was then eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
The more recent (and last) time the Supreme Court “weighed in” on the 14th amendment (United States v. Wong Kim Ark – 1898) it concluded that anyone born on US soil was a US citizen regardless of the status of the parents.
In case there are any impressionable kids reading the bigoted nonsense shoveled up by websites like this – you can read the text of the constitution for yourself – it’s fairly plain English. http://constitutionus.com/#amendments
Your interpretation of that case is incorrect. The court misinterpreted the 14th Amendment, and 4 Justices disagreed, but even with their bad decision which was politically motivated, it was based on the fact the parents were LEGAL immigrants or legal resident aliens, not illegal aliens and since illegal aliens not subject to the full jurisdiction of the US their children are not automatically citizens of the USA.
Wong was Wrong! The Minority dissenters were correct – jurisdiction is about allegiance to a country, not obeying the laws of the country you are presently in (legally or illegally)! That is expected behavior!
Charles Boyd commented above..
“The more recent (and last) time the Supreme Court “weighed in” on the 14th amendment (United States v. Wong Kim Ark – 1898) it concluded that anyone born on US soil was a US citizen regardless of the status of the parents.”
However I looked it up and found the following on Wikipedia…
“Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco around 1871, to Chinese parents legally domiciled and resident there at the time, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government’s refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the specific circumstances of his birth, which included that he was the child of foreigners permanently domiciled and resident in the U.S. at the time of birth”
As stated, Wong Kim Ark’s parents were here LEGALLY and PERMANENT RESIDENTS, and thus he was granted citizenship.
Someone here ILLEGALLY is not here legally, is not a permanent resident (no papers means not a resident), and thus is NOT a US Citizen!
Thank you Charles Boyd for encouraging me to read plain english! 🙂
Thanks for looking that up… I was afraid I would have too:)
In answer to ‘Decided to Check @CharlesBoyd’. Have you ever understood that a ‘Green Card’ holder, having been granted ‘permanent resident status’ via USC Title 8 is still an alien. He or she has not taken the oath to become a citizen of the United States of America. This ‘lawful permanent resident’ (see USC Title 26, Section 7701(b)) still owed an allegiance to his or her country of origin. In the above article “What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means” the author points this out quite clearly. This fact alone casts negative dispersions upon the Supreme Courts decision in its Wong Kim Ark majority decision.
[…] […]
That is not the way I take it. “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means exactly what it says. The territorial jurisdiction of The United States is spelled out in Title 18 Section 7, and it most certainly does not include the several states. So according to the 14th Amendment’s definition of citizen of The United States, we most are not.
In his work, “Blunders of the Supreme Court of the United States, Part 3” (online), the author, Dan Goodman, shows with cases from the Supreme Court that the political jurisdiction of the United States does not extend to the several States, but only to the District of Columbia, its territories and possessions, and federal enclaves with the several States of the Union and that one born in a State of the Union is subject to the political jurisdiction of that State and not that of the United States.
So birthright citizenship does not apply to the several States of the Union!
This article can be read at these two links:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81552988/Blunders-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-_-Part-3
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57701755/Blunders-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Part-3
Thank you for this great aritlce,
so there are aliens or not ?!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.?)
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.
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.
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…
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.
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 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!
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]?
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….
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!
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 –
I agree!
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”????
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.
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.
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?
Any child born to Mexican citizens abroad is a Mexican citizen.
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.
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>
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.”
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
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 LM David:
Right on David. This is a misguided law and should be amended to insure that only Legal Citizens children have that right.
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!