[arrogantsob]

In the discussions leading up to the 14th amendment it was made clear that being born here was not to be considered as attaining citizenship. This was not even controversial.

[rxsid]

"In the discussions leading up to the 14th amendment it was made clear that being born here was not to be considered as attaining citizenship. This was not even controversial."

John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment!

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War.

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

 

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

Nobody questioned or debated Congressman Bingham on who was a "natural born Citizen." They ALL knew exactly what the Constitutional phrase meant. Born in the sovereign territory to 2 citizen parents.

[waynesa98]

unfortunately however the case ( United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898) does change what the founders believed (what Vattel wrote in the law of nations) that subjugation or citizenship flowed from the fathers citizenship not the place of birth.

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Order affirmed. “