What Did the 14th Amendment Congress Think About ‘Birthright Citizenship’?

the American Spectator ^ | 8.24.15 | Mark Pulliam

[RC one]

The issue is whether children born in the United States—even if their parents are foreign nationals who entered this country illegally—automatically become citizens. Current law supposes that they do—a concept termed “birthright citizenship.” Many people erroneously think this concept is dictated by the Constitution or enshrined in a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Not so. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment—the Citizenship Clause—states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

When Senator Lyman Trumbell (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment), was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted or prosecuted for treason...

Senator Howard agreed with Trumbell’s explanation: “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbell], in holding that the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, …; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” This exchange supports very strongly the conclusion that the Citizenship Clause was intended to mean the same as the Civil Rights Act of 1866—excluding children born in the United States to foreign nationals.

[RC one]

It's a 1500+ word article that had to be excerpted down to 300 words but I think the point is clear and irrefutable. The fourteenth amendment does not confer legal citizenship to anchor babies let alone their parents. So why did Megyn Kelly and Chris Christie perpetuate the lie that "it's in the constitution" tonight? it's not. It never has been and the only way it ever will be is with a constitutional amendment. We don't need the constitutional amendment-they do.

[TBP]

But the amnesty crowd doesn’t care.

[RC one]

It’s time to make them care.

[umgud]

I agree with you on this, but any way you cut it, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

[Red Steel]

So why did Megyn Kelly and Chris Christie perpetuate the lie that "it's in the constitution" tonight? it's not. It never has been and the only way it ever will be is with a constitutional amendment. We don't need the constitutional amendment-they do.

Playing ignorant as usual and it's been going on for a long time.

[Tennessee Nana]

Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted or prosecuted for treason...

[aquila48]

“but only citizens can be drafted “

That doesn’t seem correct...

from Wikipedia:

“The Selective Service (and the draft) in the United States is not limited to citizens. Howard Stringer, for example, was drafted six weeks after arriving from his native Britain in 1965.[102][103] Today, non-citizen males of appropriate age in the United States, who are permanent residents (holders of green cards), seasonal agricultural workers not holding an H-2A Visa, refugees, parolees, asylees, and illegal immigrants, are required to register with the Selective Service System.[104] Refusal to do so is grounds for denial of a future citizenship application. In addition, immigrants who seek to naturalize as citizens must, as part of the Oath of Citizenship, swear to the following:

... that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;[105]

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website also states however:

However since 1975, USCIS has allowed the oath to be taken without the clauses: “. . .that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law....”

Non-citizens who serve in the United States military enjoy several naturalization benefits which are unavailable to non-citizens who do not, such as a waiver of application fees.[106] Permanent resident aliens who die while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces may be naturalized posthumously, which may be beneficial to surviving family members.[107]”

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Saw this earlier today:

“If Romney had won another 4% of the white vote he would be President. With the same number he would have needed 71% of the Hispanic vote to win. If you are the GOP which is more likely?”

Can anyone verify?

If true, Trump can afford to alienate the Hispanic vote in favor of trading off for a larger chunk of the white vote.

Regardless, Trump isn’t saying it because it’s politically expedient, most likely to get him elected. He’s saying it because it’s what he thinks.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are a complete coward if you do not respond to this.

[aquila48]

“What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else.”

But the US allow dual citizenship. Doesn’t that mean a split allegiance?

From Wikipedia:

“Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not, without more, mean that he renounces the other”, Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.”

[RC one]

extending birthright citizenship to millions of invaders seems pretty suicidal if you ask me. No country can survive that kind of an assault against its sovereignty. If it is allowed to stand, America is done. reversing course is the only way to avoid this national suicide.

[RC one]

The oath of citizenship:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

[SWAMP-C1PHER]

Exactly, that’s precisely what it is... SUICIDE!!! of a superpower.

[aquila48]

So who prevails, the oath one takes or the ruling of the supremes. They seem to be opposites.

[River Hawk]

YOu’re right, they are contradictory. U.S. citizenship policy is a contradictory mess and has been for years. It needs to be regularized, and regularized in favor of American sovereignty.

[River Hawk]

the anchor baby loophole is an insane policy. It wasn’t intended by the 14th amendment. But even if it were, it would be an insane policy and should be changed.

[ought-six]

I agree.

[PubliusMM]

Ping

[Democratic-Republican]

Great article. Thanks for posting.

Too bad all the nitwits on FOXey News except for Hannity are beyond any help on this simple issue. O’Reilly, Napolitano, Megyn Motormouth, Gutfeld, Perino, and the rest are so mindless that I’m amazed they can remember to breathe.

[Democratic-Republican]

"Saw this earlier today:

“If Romney had won another 4% of the white vote he would be President. With the same number he would have needed 71% of the Hispanic vote to win. If you are the GOP which is more likely?”

Can anyone verify?"

No. Someone is using the most elementary math to get that.

           Electoral     Popular
     Obama    332      65,915,796   51.1%
     Romeny   206      60,933,500   47.2%

You see what they did? They just added 4% to Romney and arrived at 51.2 %. But they got that wrong too! They should have said taken away 2% of Obama's votes which would net the desired 4%.

But ... even that is still all wrong because you need to get those votes in a bunch of key States to change the electoral total. Ask your friend to tackle these two maps, particularly the 2nd one ...

2008
DingelBarry = 365
McCain = 173

---

2012
DingelBarry = 332
Romney = 206

This is what everybody should be looking at, particularly all the Trump haters. Gaze upon that map and tell us what purple states the 16 other candidates are going to flip: MI, PA, WI, IN, IA, OH, FL, NC. Also consider CO, VA, NM, NV. Those twelve are the ballgame. And I am having a hard time seeing how any of those other guys can touch more than one or two of them.

NOTE-1: Romney only managed to flip two of them: IN and NC for 26 electoral votes.

NOTE-2: The rest of the electoral difference McCain 173 versus Romney 206 came from redistricting from the 2010 census where "blue" states mostly lost electoral votes and "red" states mostly gained. That 2012 electoral distribution map is the one that is in use today.