Black Americans Deserve Clarification on Birthright Citizenship

Townhall.com ^ | 11/13/2018 | Carl Jackson

[LavaDog]

How do you undermine America’s long held motto, “E Pluribus Unum,” while systematically destroying America’s sovereignty? One illegal alien at a time.

[Brian Griffin]

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

“Be it enacted...That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States....”

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-civil-rights-act-of-1866/

“...it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. 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.” Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the Complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. [emphases added] 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.”

“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.”

— Senator Lyman Trumbull, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session. (See middle of first column.)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

“The author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was Senator Lyman Trumbull.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866

“The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

The case decision concerned voting rights.

“the language proposed in this constitutional amendment is better than the language in the civil rights bill. The object to be arrived at is the same.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=15

Arguably supporting the broader leftist view:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. 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 a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
— Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

There were also comments on the Chinese in California of strikingly similar nature to those made about Central Americans today. I didn’t notice any objection to one Senator’s belief that the Chinese children born here should get US citizenship, however, the potential impact of this was strongly minimized.

“The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States....Indians and their property, exempt from taxation by treaty or statute of the United States, could not be taxed by any state. General acts of congress did not apply to Indians, unless so expressed as to clearly manifest an intention to include them.”

https://openjurist.org/112/us/94
PDF text of Elk vs. Wilkins

[DMZFrank]

“Black Americans Deserve Clarification on Birthright Citizenship”

ALL Americans Deserve Clarification on Birthright Citizenship!!