Birth in the US does not make you a citizen

Supreme Court case Elk V. Wilkins ^

[ought-six]

“A traffic infraction is a criminal offense?”

It’s known in the law as a quasi-criminal offense, as it is based in the penal codes of the respective states and is punishable. One is not legally punished in the US simply for being a foreigner.

Diplomats are specifically identified in the US Codes as being exempt from a small handful of ordinances, and that’s only because of political courtesy (i.e., we do not want our diplomats and government personnel serving in foreign lands to be hassled for small offenses, so we have agreed to so exempt the samer who are here in the US on OFFICIAL duties.

Take a basic class in Constitutional law. If your professor is honest, and is not pursuing a political agenda, he or she will admit that it was only relatively recently that activists trotted out the fiction that merely being born in the US makes one a US citizen. An illustration: A pregnant French woman vacationing in Chicago goes into early labor and delivers a baby in a restaurant on Wacker Drive. That kid is not an automatic American citizen. It is recognized both in the US and in France as a French citizen. The difference between that scenario is that the French mother and her baby will return to France, but a Mexican mother who dashes across the border into Arizona and has her kid at a Phoenix bus stop has no intention at all of returning to Mexico, and will refuse to do so, arguing the myth that she can’t leave her American baby.

[Hulka]

“Reservations,” perhaps?

Don’t know, but they have their own recognized governments and laws, and under the BIA of the USG, so, they are, sort of, Indian Territories. ?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I see. So your answer to where your position on "jurisdiction" resides in the Constitution is that I should take a basic Constitutional class.

How convenient for you; never mind that US vs Ark found that the 14th needs to be interpreted in light of English Common Law, and that is jus soli, citizenship by birthplace.

Oh, and your example? The child would be granted US citizenship and could claim it if they chose to do so, but have to do so on their 18th birthday. I work with just such a person (actually, parents were here in Seattle, and they are Canadian, no French).

[null and void]

All available evidence suggests that the Founding Fathers intended for the requirements to hold the Office of the President be unique.

Merely being an American citizen did not suffice, they reserved the office to that singular person, a "Natural Born Citizen", someone of undivided loyalties based on BOTH place of birth AND citizenship of parents.

Thus they followed both Vattel and Blackstone in believing that a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen both under the doctrine of jus soli, that is by being born on the soil of the country, and jus sanguinis, by having the blood of that country's citizen parents flowing through their veins.

[null and void]

Welcome to FR.

[null and void]

Ping!

[fanfan]

Thanks Nully.

You say it so much better than I do.
:-)

[RegulatorCountry]

How convenient for you; never mind that US vs Ark found that the 14th needs to be interpreted in light of English Common Law, and that is jus soli, citizenship by birthplace.

The 14th Amendment dealt with former slaves who were being denied any form of citizenship at all. They were not born citizens and they certainly were not subjects of the English crown. They were made citizens by an affirmative act of law, ergo they were naturalized. How anyone makes the leap that the 14th Amendment somehow altered Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution in the process is beyond me.

Justice Horace Gray, wacky and inconsistent as he was, having reversed his own earlier decision in Elk v. Wilkins under discussion, didn't make that claim in Wong Kim Ark. Mr. Wong's parents were prevented by treaty with China from ever becoming naturalized. They had established a domicil in the United States, conducted business here and had become resident aliens under the law. They were no mere transients.

Wong was denied reentry into the country on the basis of not being a citizen, after having been admitted before. That was the motivation for the lawsuit, and Mr. Wong was determined to be a citizen on the basis of the 14th Amendment. Remember, that Amendment created citizens by an affirmative act of law. Such individuals cannot be natural born.

Authorities in the country did not recognize children of aliens or foreigners as citizens until the father was himself naturalized, whether those children were born here or elsewhere, right up into the twentieth century.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Authorities in the country did not recognize children of aliens or foreigners as citizens until the father was himself naturalized, whether those children were born here or elsewhere, right up into the twentieth century.

The Ark case established Federal recognition of those born here to non-citizen parents (naturalized or not).

[RegulatorCountry]

Oh really? That's odd, I was under the impression that Justice Gray of Wong Kim Ark had himself earlier determined in Elk v. Wilkins that:

“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."

You cite Justice Gray in the one instance as somehow being definitive of citizenship via Wong Kim Ark and yet completely ignore his own prior decision elaborating upon the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," a concept with which you're having evident difficulty today.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So your contention is that a legally admitted foreigner - not a citizen, not an ambassador - is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

[RegulatorCountry]

There you go again. I've provided you with the decision of the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins penned by Justice Gray himself. You have no difficulty with his being authoritative elsewhere as in Wong Kim Ark. But you do here, and that is curious.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means political allegiance, not some simplistic notion of liability for fine or arrest for jaywalking. That has been made clear by numerous authorities, including the "father" of the 14th Amendment himself.

[old republic]

Born in a public hospital isn't within the domain of a foreign government.

I see your point, but earlier up in the opinion the court says that anyone born in the territorial US owing immediate allegiance to an Indian tribe (an alien though dependent power) does NOT become an American citizen even if born in the US. If an Indian tribe is a dependent foreign power and can't be born a US citizen simply by being born in the geographic US, how can anyone argue that the child of an independent and alien power (i.e. foreign nation) can claim US citizenship by simply being born in the US? IMHO, such a conclusion cannot logically follow from this court opinion. The court case clearly states that geographic location of birth does guarantee citizenship to anyone if they are the child of foreign citizens. For easier reference here is the quote from that court case cited again below.

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.

By the way, on a slight tangent the two authors of the 14th amendment had the following to say about the meaning of the citizenship clause:Sen Jacob Howards author of the Citizenship clause said this when introducing the amendment in the Senate:

[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

The other co-author of the 14th amendment in the House said:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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."

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Your use of jurisdiction doesn't appear anywhere in any legal dictionary, nor any common dictionary, nor in the Constitution. Elk and Ark were both correct, because at the time Elk was actually NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US, being born on an Indian reservation (which had its own legal system and jurisdiction); Ark is correct because a foreigner who has a child in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US (provided they are not an ambassador or other foreign Government official).

The two are not in conflict; they are quite consistent. If you're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (which is the case for anyone on our soil, except for ambassadors or other foreign government officials), then you become a citizen.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I see your point, but earlier up in the opinion the court says that anyone born in the territorial US owing immediate allegiance to an Indian tribe (an alien though dependent power) does NOT become an American citizen even if born in the US.

The Elk case held he was NOT a citizen because he was born on an Indian reservation which is NOT subject to the full jurisdiction of the US. How does that apply to a person born in a public hospital in, say, downtown Seattle?

how can anyone argue that the child of an independent and alien power (i.e. foreign nation) can claim US citizenship by simply being born in the US?

Because it's what the 14th Amendment states:

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.

If you are born in the United States, and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (not an ambassador or other legally-exempted individual), then you are a citizen. There should be no argument at all about this.

There is only ONE way to NOT get citizenship when you're born on US soil, and that is to not be under the jurisdiction of the United States. So who is exempted from the laws of the United States, when present here? Who does not fall under US jurisdiction?

Essentially, the only way a person born here (not to an ambassador or other foreign government official) is NOT a citizen by birth is they can, somehow, not be subject to US law. That's the only way out.

So, make the case for who that person would be. Who is not an ambassador and not subject to US laws on US soil?

[RegulatorCountry]

It's not my usage, PugetSoundSoldier. It's the usage of Justice Horace Gray, of the father of the 14th Amendment and other authorities. Your interpretation depends entirely upon a Constitutional Amendment ratified due to citizenship denied entirely to a distinct class of people, and it depends upon the special case of Wong Kim Ark, who was denied citizenship despite resident alien parents who were themselves denied the option of naturalization by treaty with China.

That's all you've got, and you resort to a tortured interpretation to get even that. A 14th Amendment citizen is not a natural born citizen. The original 14th Amendment citizens were not natural born citizens, they weren't even citizens at all, which was the source of contention. To claim that subsequent applications of this somehow altered Article II, Section I is not logical at all.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

It's not my usage, PugetSoundSoldier. It's the usage of Justice Horace Gray, of the father of the 14th Amendment and other authorities.

Please read again what was written by Justice Gray:

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.

If you're born on US soil and subject to US laws then you're a citizen. Tortured is trying to argue otherwise, when Justice Gray was quite explicit in his qualification.

At the time of Elk Indian reservations had their own laws and were not entirely subject to US law. That is why they were excluded, and why Gray added the qualifier. You appear to ignore that, and as a result end up with the illogical - and unconstitutional - position you hold.

Wong Kim Ark, who was denied citizenship despite resident alien parents who were themselves denied the option of naturalization by treaty with China.

FALSE. Wong Kim Ark was ruled a citizen by birth. Please see his case; the citizenship of his parents was immaterial to Ark's citizenship. He was a citizen by birth in the US. Your ignorance about the results of the Ark case is startling, but does explain why you hold an unconstitutional position.

[RegulatorCountry]

I've provided Justice Gray's own writing, regarding the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and it clearly means political allegiance in the context of citizenship, PugetSoundSoldier. Go back and read it again.

You're tying yourself up in knots here. The reason for Wong Kim Ark's lawsuit was his being denied entry due to citizenship by immigration authorities at his port of return. That's why he sued. Why do you think he brought suit regarding his citizenship if he actually was regarded as a citizen at birth, at the time of his birth? Clearly he was not, and yet you'd create an anachronism that was not recognized by the courts at that time.

Wong Kim Ark was deemed a citizen on the basis of the 14th Amendment, an Amendment ratified to address the problem of certain States denying citizenship to former slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War. It had no bearing then, nor does it have bearing now, upon eligibility to the office of President, and even if by some flying backflip of logic it did, the original 14th Amendment citizens were not born citizens at all.

It's really not that hard, unless you want it to be. You want it to be.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I’ve stated my case, and the reference material is here for others. The 14th Amendment is unequivocal: if you are born on US soil and subject to our laws, you’re a citizen.

Good day.

[RegulatorCountry]

And a good evening to you as well.

Hopefully, you’ll come to recognize the distinction between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen before we end up with something worse that that foreign piker Obama.