Replies

As you like. One would think that an internet denizen of your experience would be past the point of taking faceless incivility seriously. I do however notice that your position gives you an excuse not to answer the questions. Clever tactic that.

You might also notice that I'm not at all given to NOT answering questions, even the toughest of questions and objections, addressed in a civil manner from civil people.

In that regard, you did actually make an interesting objection regarding Indians and slaves. In spite of your general incivility, the point was interesting and relevant enough that I'm going to respond to it.

Your point was that Indians and slaves, in spite of having been born on US soil (jus soli) were not considered to be natural born citizens.

It wasn't just slaves. It was ALL people of African descent, no matter how whether they were free or slave, and no matter whether their parents had been free or slave.

The fact is, both Indians and black people were regarded as foreign or alien nations of people, even though they resided on United States territory.

This regarding was so strong as to produce the disastrous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which was NOT a close decision.

It was a 7-2 decision.

The Dred Scott decision reads, in part:

A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

So the Court ruled, 7 to 2, that not only were free black people NOT citizens, it was not and never would be even POSSIBLE for a free black person EVER to become a citizen of the United States. It didn't matter HOW many generations their ancestors had been here, and it didn't matter to what extent they made themselves a part of the community and contributed. They were excluded simply by virtue of the fact of their ancestry.

More than that, the Court ruled that no State could even CHANGE this and pass a law to make black people citizens! The court also ruled that there was NOTHING a State could do that would allow a black man to file suit in a federal court.

The Dred Scott Court in fact relies on Vattel in making their argument. This is, as far as I can determine, the ONLY Supreme Court decision that does. And the Supreme Court later REJECTS their reasoning in Wong Kim Ark, quoting instead from the dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

He then comments:

And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

Donofrio says "to this extent" refers to basic citizenship.

That's nonsense.

"To this extent" refers to: to the extent that they allowed citizenship to be granted at all.

Citizenship was not granted, as you noted, to Indians or slaves. But beyond that, it wasn't granted by the Dred Scott Court to any black people at all.

Any white couple could move to the United States from Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Serbia, Poland, anywhere in Europe, and their children born here would be natural-born citizens, even though they themselves had never become citizens.

And yet black people born HERE, and Indians born HERE, were not allowed to be citizens, even though their ancestors might have been free inhabitants of the United States, and even fully participating in US society, for generations.

This was an obvious absurdity, it was literally racist, and the injustice of it ended up tearing our nation apart.

So it's not that Indians and slaves weren't considered to be natural born citizens... it's that "Injuns, Chinermen and N*****s" were excluded (in a way that was COMPLETELY inconsistent with treatment of the white Europeans who were also from other and completely FOREIGN nations) from EVER being citizens at all.

And as I say, this policy ended by tearing our nation apart.

So if you want to base your doctrine of citizenship on those policies, you need to understand what you're basing it on.