Birth in the US does not make you a citizen

Supreme Court case Elk V. Wilkins ^

[MrZippy2k]

Wow, the lame street media had me fooled. I had always thought that if you were born in the US, you were a citizen. Not so fast my little amigo....seems just because your Madre was 9 months along before stepping over the boarder - doen't make you a citizen per the Supreme Court case Elk V. Wilkins.

Why hasn't this story been told before?

Here's what the Chief Justice had to say on it. Makes perfect sense to me and is very clearly explained...

Chief Justice Taney, in the passage cited for the plaintiff from his opinion in @ 60 U. S. 404, did not affirm or imply that either the Indian tribes, or individual members of those tribes, had the right, beyond other foreigners, to become citizens of their own will, without being naturalized by the United States. His words were:

"They [the Indian tribes] may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress and become citizens of a state and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people."

But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which

"No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,"

and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

[xvq2er]

Ping

[dixjea]

asnd since the Indian Territories no longer exist, whats your point.

[central_va]

I think they are talking about births in Indian Casino Lavatories?

[so_real]

Perhaps regrettably, those that came between us and the Founders have meddled with citizenship to the point where, in most cases, birth within the nation does afford the child citizenship -- "anchorbabyhood". But ... at no point in our national history has an attempt been made to redefine "natural born citizen". And that is where Obama fails muster -- "dual citizen" and "natural born citizen" are incompatible concepts at their very cores.

[ought-six]

Kids born within the geographic US to parents who are foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ nations, not the US. Ergo, just because a kid is physically born in the US does does automatically bestow citizenship on that kid.

[Vermont Lt]

Why isn’t this specified in the Constitution. I lived for about forty years believing something that wasn’t true. Instead or, or in addition to, state laws that prescribe what identification is necessary to run for office, we should work on defining citizenship in the constitution.

Can anyone point to something in the Federalist papers or any of the other founding documents that discusses this. I find it amazing that they did not specify the rules for citizenship.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"Kids born within the geographic US"

That would seem to be irrelevant in this specific case, as the kid in question was born within the geographic carve-out of an Indian nation, as recognized at the time.

[buzzer]

If not even native americans can be considered “natural born”. Who the hell else can be called “natural born” citizen ?!? Neither Obama nor McCain were able to calm doubts about their “natural born” citizenship but were eligible as president of the US of A ! A NATIVE american is now considered not only non-”natural born” but not a citizen at all by supreme court. How can something like this happen ?

I’d guess we’ll need a more water proof definition by law of the terms “beeing a citizen” and beeing “natural born”.

[Clemenza]

Forget "original intent" or your own interpretation of the constitution. You have decades of judicial precedent against you. This is our Common Law system. Deal with it (by getting originalist justices appointed).

And the next person who tells me that congress can nullify supreme court decisions (usually by quoting the Birchers) needs to get back to the crack pipe.

[HighlyOpinionated]

bttt

[righttackle44]

Are there some who are just too St-p-d to be on Free Republic?

[central_va]

Woops, I forgot the < / sacasm >

[AuntB]

"Every 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." Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866."Every 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."

Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=Howard+Jacob

[joseph20]

I think it is possible to be a birth citizen while falling short of the “natural born” definition.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Kids born within the geographic US to parents who are foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ nations, not the US

Really? They don't have to abide by US laws? Their parents won't get ticketed for running a red light, or arrested for robbing a 7-11? Foreigners are exempt from our laws, from the jurisdiction of the US while here in the US?

[YellowRoseofTx]

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are (1)foreigners, (2)aliens, (3)who belong to the families of ambassadors or (4)foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Is this what this paragraph means? There are 4 groups who born here would NOT be automatic citizens....foreigners....aliens.....etc.?

If not, then exactly what does it mean?

[RegulatorCountry]

Citizenship was determined by the States at the time the Constitution was ratified, Vermont Lt. A citizen of one of the several States was ipso facto a citizen of the United States.

There was no federal regulation of citizenship itself, there was only Constitutional restriction upon those who would be eligible for elected office at the federal level. This remained the case even after immigration and naturalization was a power enumerated under the Constitution to the national legislature in order to create a more uniform set of statute law pertaining to citizenship acquired by these means. States made every citizenship determination right up to the 14th Amendment, which was itself in response to certain States denying citizenship to former slaves.

So, of course the Constitution did not speak specifically to something that was clearly enumerated to the States or to The People. It dealt with matters between the States acting in unity as the United States, as did the looser Articles of Confederation that preceded it going back to the end of the Revolution in 1781.

[rolling_stone]

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[31] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[28] When accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, a newborn’s status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual’s mother or father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America

[rolling_stone]

http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

this has been discussed at length and laws have been proposed to clarify it but so far nothing..after November maybe we can push for clarification.