Posted on 09/05/2017 12:31:25 AM PDT by Boomer
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
This helps to explain the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause.
That's one of the most unpersuasive arguments I've seen.
Howard says:
"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."
but what he meant is entirely dependent on how you interpret the punctuation. I think he meant foreign, alien, and belonging...
Otherwise, the statement is entirely redundant.
To remove all doubt, Turnbull, your source's "highest authority", says:
"Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."
He's making the point that citizens of the Indian nations aren't subject to our jurisdiction because we have a treaty that excuses them. Otherwise they would be because they were born here.
Your link completely supports my position, although I don't think the author realizes it.
Then you are not reading this information correctly:
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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...[6]
__________________________________________________
Thus, anchor baby cannot be a citizen of the United States, because his parents are not citizens of the United States, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
This was considered obvious to those of the post Civil War period when these Amendments were being debated.
The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to former slaves.
Note that citizenship is NOT extended to native Indians, even though by your reading , they could be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Their citizenship was not granted until an Act of Congress in June, 1924, 56 years later.
As far as I know, there has never been an Act of Congress which included a class of people known as “anchor babies”.
This doesn't conflict with my interpretation. He's using "allegiance to any foreign power" to refer to ambassadors, foreign military stationed in the US, and others here as official agents of a foreign power - not just foreign citizens.
Note that citizenship is NOT extended to native Indians, even though by your reading , they could be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The Indians weren't under US jurisdiction because they were under the jurisdiction of their Indian nations - a status agreed to by treaty. In fact, this was one of the reasons for the "under the jurisdiction" clause - to exclude them from citizenship.
You are referring to Sen. Howard’s comments. I was referring to John Bingham’s comments.
Per Senator Howard:
“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.”
But other Senators held the same ,with clarification that was never opposed by Senator Howard—because they all agreed in principle—that they were not just talking about foreign ministers and their offspring:
source for what follows:
Legislative History of the 14th Amendment:
During Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause it was made clear that the drafters did not intend automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th Amendment, in floor debate said of the Clause:
“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.”[1]
Senator Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause. He said, “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Notice the reasoning deployed, Native Americans maintain their tribal relations so they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Senator Edgar Cowan said, “It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.”[2]
Senator Lyman Trumbull said:
“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.”[3] (emphasis added)
He further elaborated, “What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
There was still more discussion of the language by Senator Reverdy Johnson. He said:
“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”[4]
________________________________________________________
The common principle is that no one born here subject to a foreign power, has US citizenship.
If they meant everyone born here is automatically a citizen, there would be no need for the qualifier “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
The Supreme Court has never held that birth here is automatic US citizenship.
Very good post. Congress is anti-American People. You laid it out well.
No, actually, I was responding to, and re-quoted, Bingham's words in the post I was responding to.
But no matter, we're pretty much going in circles.
I'll summarize my position and leave it at that. No matter what we think makes sense, or what we want the law to be, the words of the 14th say what they say. If you're born here and subject to our laws, meaning jurisdiction, you're a citizen.
At the time of ratification most Indians and diplomats weren't subject to the laws of the US, so they weren't subject to our jurisdiction.
Pretty much everyone else, including anchor babies, were and as such they have birthright citizenship.
Being born here does not make you subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
That is the whole point.
The laws apply to you, but you are under the ultimate jurisdiction of the country of your parents’ birth or citizenship.
You are correct that we are going around in circles.
Thanks for the discussion.
Bullcrap.
End DACA Now!
End “birthright citizenship” for children of illegal aliens.
DEPORT!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.