Replies

Echoing the sentiments of Eastman, Erler points out that the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to reassure the Congress in 1868 that the citizenship provisions did not cover—nor were they crafted with the intent to grant—citizenship to the children of foreign nationals born in the United States. Specifically, the myriad of Native American tribes were not covered under the citizenship clause because they clearly owed allegiance to their tribes and therefore were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government—a clear indication Erler says that jurisdiction is indeed contingent on exclusive allegiance.

It wasn't simply because they owed allegience to their tribes by blood. It was because those tribes had lands that were granted a degree of sovereignity under treaty. So even though those lands were located within the U.S., the U.S. did not have full jurisdiction over those lands.

And a child’s allegiance must follow that of its parents during its years as a minor."

So if a child is born of parents, one of whom is a citizen of the U.S. and one who is not, he's not a citizen of any nation? Or an American man married a Native American woman, married her, then took her to NYC to raise a family, none of those children are American citizens? Do you really think that's what anyone actually intended?

There are a great many immigrants who came to this country in the late 1880's and early 1900's who did not, themselves, ever become citizens. Or at least, both parents didn't complete naturalization before having at least some children. No big deal because we've always assumed that their children became citizens because they were born here.

But just consider for a moment if your argument is correct. You are going to have to go back and unwind everyone's ancestors, going all the way back to the boats, to see if the ancestor was naturalized before giving birth. Because by the logic that has been advanced here, unless both immigrant parents completed naturalization before their children were born, those children were not citizens either. Which means that unless they were later naturalized -- and why would they be, since they always assumed they were citizens by birth-- none of their children would be U.S. citizens either. And they essentially have contaminated anyone they've married because their offspring would not have two parents who were citizens either.

So exactly how many tens of millions of Americans are there who are completely unaware that they're not actually American citizens, despite having had family in this country for more than 100 years?

So if a child is born of parents, one of whom is a citizen of the U.S. and one who is not, he's not a citizen of any nation? Or an American man married a Native American woman, married her, then took her to NYC to raise a family, none of those children are American citizens? Do you really think that's what anyone actually intended?

As of today, if a native Indian and a US citizen marry, their children would be without split allegiances and NBC. If they married in the past, as I said in post 618, the children would have taken their father's allegiance and the mother would have taken the citizenship of her husband, and therefore the children would have their allegiance to the tribe or the United States. Again, depending on father's allegiance.