Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
that would be anyone who is not born a citizen, but instead goes through the naturalization process at some point afterwards.

The definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was defined in 1795 within the framework of naturalization.

Naturalization Act of 1795

Chap. ⅩⅩ.—An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.

For carrying into complete effect, the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise:—

First. He shall have declared on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citizen or subject.

Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation, before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall he recorded by the clerk of the court.

Thirdly. The court admitting such alien, shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

Sec. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, may be admitted to become a citizen, on his declaring on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and, where the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the act intituled “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

Approved, January 29, 1795.

The above was codified in federal law here: 8 USC §1448. Oath of renunciation and allegiance, as well as in the surrounding sections of Subchapter III of Part II of Chapter 12 of Title 8.

Oath of allegiance

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.

The fact that this exists within the context of naturalization should not cause it to be discarded as irrelevant to the 14th amendment "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" discussion. This proves that the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" pre-existed the 14th amendment by 73 years.

What We Can Take Away From This

  1. The 14th amendment begins with "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." This clearly covers the "or naturalized" part. 8 USC §1448 defines the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part when it comes to "or naturalized".

  2. For the "All persons born" part, they also have to meet the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requirement defined above.

    • For the existing children of naturalized citizens, the Act declares them to be citizens directly if they are under the age of 21 and residing in the United States.

    • For the future offspring of naturalized citizens, they become citizens at birth by virtue of their parent being citizens of the United States.

    • For for the newborn of citizens who were themselves born here, they are citizens by virtue of their parents never having ever been under the jurisdiction of any foreign nation.

    • For the newborn of permanent resident aliens who are permanently domiciled in the United States and foreswore their prior permanent domicile but did not take the extra step of naturalizing, the Supreme Court ruled them to be citizens in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

    • For the offspring of people temporarily in the United States on nonimmigration visas, they attested on their visa applications that they have a permanent domicile in their home country that they have no intention of abandoning. They are still subject to the jurisdiction of their home country and fail the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the 14th amendment as defined in 8 USC §1448. They are not citizens of the United States, they are citizens of the domicile of origin of their parent.

    • For the offspring of people who entered the United States illegally, they fail the "good moral character" requirement, and possibly the "whose fathers have never been resident in the United States" requirement. They are still subject to the jurisdiction of their home country and are not citizens of the United States. They are also citizens of the domicile of origin of their parent.

The 14th Amendment could not have been intended to grant birthright citizenship to the newborns of a class of people via less rigorous means than naturalization or naturalization and the gaining of citizenship will mean nothing.

-PJ

79 posted on 04/20/2026 3:14:00 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: Political Junkie Too
All the language you cited involved the renunciation of prior citizenship and loyalty for the process of naturalizing someone who had been a citizen or subject of another country.

The relevant language we are discussing in the context of the 14th Amendment applies to newborn babies who clearly have not yet formed any attachment or loyalty to any nation. Nothing in the 14th mentions parentage at all.

85 posted on 04/20/2026 3:30:51 PM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: Political Junkie Too

You are correct.

And they said pretty much the very thing at the debates when they created 14A.


91 posted on 04/20/2026 3:53:47 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact. Progressivism is a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: Political Junkie Too

I’ve been reading about the debates in Congress on the 14th Amendment. Interesting ‘stuff when we consider what was discussed and meant in the 1860’s vs. what is now meant. I had read about the discussion on Gypsies in the debates before but only superficially. Took the time to read it more deeply.

The issue of immigration as known at the time was discussed. Senator Edgar Cowan specifically brought up Gypsies. Cowan discussed domicile, allegiance, entering the country, etc.

For example, via the Amicus Curiae brief of Gerald Magliocca (at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/395294/20260203111938269_260104a%20AC%20Brief%20for%20efiling.pdf), he makes an interesting point about Gypsies being discussed as not meeting the requirements for domicile and allegiance, yet children born of Gypsies in the US being US citizens.

During the debates, Cowan stated that Pennsylvania should be able to expel Gypsies because “... they invade her borders; who owe to her no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own—an imperium in imperio; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen.” - see Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (1866) (statement of Sen. Cowan)

Magliocca makes the case that “the Thirty-Ninth Congress affirmed that native-born Gypsy children were birthright citizens even though their parents lacked allegiance or a domicile.”

Congress rejected Cowan’s concerns outright. Cowan voted against the 14th Amendment.

For whatever reason, Congress during the debates on the 14th Amendment made a conscious choice to use wording in the 14th Amendment to allow children - including Gypsy children - born in the US to become citizens, even though regarding Gypsy children:

a) their parents may not have been (and probably were not) US citizens;
c) their parents had no domicile in the US as understood at the time;
d) their parents had no allegiance to the US as understood at the time


115 posted on 04/20/2026 6:22:34 PM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson