Replies

Any student of US history knows that the 1800’s were a time of intense struggle between the states and the federal government over where the lines between state and federal power were drawn. Your New York political code is a good example of the fight about where the power to create citizens lay. We know who won that fight, now don't we? The 14th Amendment mooted those laws - the states have not played a role in determining citizenship since.

I am glad you said that! You are acknowledging that the 14th amendment created the "born on the soil" standard for the nation. Putting aside for the moment the fact that "subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" means something very different from what the Wong Kim Ark court alleged, the 14th amendment established that a "citizen" would be someone born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The problem for you is this. The meaning of "natural born citizen" Pre-Existed the 14th amendment, and therefore could not be a derivative of it. Whatever was the meaning of "natural born citizen" prior to the 14th amendment, it remained so after. Indeed, whatever the meaning was of "natural born citizen" in 1787, is the meaning that it still possesses today. The 14th amendment did not repeal article II's eligibility requirements.

But that is just MY opinion. Let us see what the Supreme Court had to say regarding this question. In 1875, (Minor v Happersett) while discussing the 14th amendment Chief Justice Waite said this:

[The 14th Amendment] does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

That is about as clear as it gets. The 14th amendment "does not say" who shall be "natural born citizens"!

So I will grant you, the 14th amendment (created to bestow citizenship upon former slaves who had no birthright by blood) made anyone born in the United States and Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, (such as a former slave, but not an illegal immigrant) a "citizen" of the United States.That this is the same thing as a "natural born citizen" I explicitly reject.

The Congress discussed the term "natural born citizen" during the debates on the 14th amendment, yet the finished amendment conspicuously omitted the words "natural born." So did the Wong Kim Ark court.