Posted on 05/08/2010 10:51:22 AM PDT by MrZippy2k
Wow, the lame street media had me fooled. I had always thought that if you were born in the US, you were a citizen. Not so fast my little amigo....seems just because your Madre was 9 months along before stepping over the boarder - doen't make you a citizen per the Supreme Court case Elk V. Wilkins.
Why hasn't this story been told before?
Here's what the Chief Justice had to say on it. Makes perfect sense to me and is very clearly explained...
Chief Justice Taney, in the passage cited for the plaintiff from his opinion in @ 60 U. S. 404, did not affirm or imply that either the Indian tribes, or individual members of those tribes, had the right, beyond other foreigners, to become citizens of their own will, without being naturalized by the United States. His words were:
"They [the Indian tribes] may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress and become citizens of a state and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people."
But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
"No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,"
and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
The exclusion of native Americans from citizenship was eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Chief Justice Taney? What “supreme court” are we talking about here?
Another thing: look up the difference between ‘boarder’ and ‘border.’
I didn’t read the rest of it... amigo.
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign governmentborn within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
The last couple of clauses in the court's opinion make the argument that those born to foreign citizens are not US citizens even if they are born in the territorial United States. It doesn't just apply to the citizens of Indian Tribes. This opinion says that birthright citizenship based on ius soli.
Ping!
A clinker or two like this case and the Dred Scott decision can really mess up a justice's legacy . Poor old Roger Taney , sometimes history makes you look bad .
For whatever reason they clean plumb done forgot all about their rule that if you are born here of a foreign mother (on a visa) you must be added to that visa within so many number of days.
At first glance that doesn't say anything about "citizenship". Then you realize American citizens don't need visas to be in the US, but foreigners do ~ and there it is ~ a visa.
We probably have 30 million people in this country who are still waiting on their mothers, grand mothers and great grandmothers to add somebody to their visas to clarify the matter.
Most likely they didn't bother to get visas in the first place, but that doesn't seem to exempt anybody from the law!
Hear hear! However someones has forgotten to remind our lawmakers of this as well as some 20 million people who’ve entered America illegally and have had kids.
You should tell that to the congress and all the women rushing across the southern border in labor to give birth here..
The simple truth:
The Constitution, 14th Amendment: “”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”
Title 8 USC 1401 clarifies: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...”
Elk v. Wilkins merely decided that the Indian Nations were foreign powers, and therefore children born in the Indian Nations were not “born in the United States.” This exception was eliminated by “The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”
Currently, only the children of diplomats are not deemed US citizens upon birth in the US. This is because diplomats are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US — which is also why they can’t be charged with crimes in the US
Conclusion: An woman can enter the country illegally ten minutes before giving birth. The child is automatically a citizen of the United States.
You may not like it; you can try to change it; but don’t try to use a Supreme Court decision from 1884 that isn’t even applicable anymore to support a falsehood.
Good luck. These guys get real heated over this stuff. The fact is the jurisdiction exclusion was put in place specifically FOR diplomats. One can imagine how bad it would play for an Iranian or Saudi diplomat whose wife popped while on duty here in the US and all of a sudden his child is an American... So diplomats who are not under US jurisdiction (aka diplomatic immunity) are excluded from birthright citizenship.
So an illegal act will grant anyone American citizenship?
That’s like saying if my parents robbed a bank of a million dollars I am entitled to keep the money if they put the stolen money in a trust account for me before I was born.
bump & ping
“Really? They don’t have to abide by US laws? Their parents won’t get ticketed for running a red light, or arrested for robbing a 7-11? Foreigners are exempt from our laws, from the jurisdiction of the US while here in the US?”
Don’t be absurd. The examples you cite are criminal laws, and everyone present within the US is bound by them. The “jurisdiction” referred to in the Constitution relates to one’s national status (i.e., which nation has jurisdiction over the party as a citizen or subject).
I see. A traffic infraction is a criminal offense? Because there are foreigners here - legally - who are exempt from US jurisdiction, meaning traffic, civil, and criminal offenses: diplomats and representatives of foreign Governments here on official business. In fact, Senator Howard was quite clear in that fact.
So, what person is here that is not subject to US jurisdiction, other than such diplomats and officials? Perhaps a review of the definition of jurisdiction is called for before you answer.
I'd be most interested in where you found the meaning of jurisdiction that you claim; it must reside in the Constitution somewhere.
Or, do you hold the protections afforded in the 14th Amendment means that we can go out and rob, beat, and kill any foreigner on our land - whether here legally or not - because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Government, and thus do not have the protections of the Constitution (per the 14th)?
Look at those words:
children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Highlighted part in particular. Born in a public hospital isn't within the domain of a foreign government.
the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations
If your parent is not an ambassador or other official representative of a foreign Government, then this clause does not apply.
So, under the 14th Amendment, how would a person born in a public hospital NOT be covered? How would they qualify for either of these only two exclusions to citizenship?
ping
Have I got that right, Nully?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.