Replies

The SCOTUS already dealt with this issue in the late 1800s. While it was “dicta” rather than a binding ruling, no one has dented it since it was published:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king....

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: ‘By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.’...

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established...”

Kerchner relies on Vattel, but what he didn’t know at the time (and refuses to admit now) is that Vattel did not use NBC when writing in the French. And it wasn’t until 10 years AFTER the US Constitution was approved that a bad translation of Vattel inserted NBC where it didn’t belong.

Kerchner used the bad translation without realizing Vattel never wrote what was in that translation! This is what Vattel wrote:

“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

Translations at the time the Constitution was written translated it “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

Clarification — In quotes is what Mr. Rogers typed as his quote of Vattel’s sentence in French in Vattel’s legal treatise on Principles of Natural Law in Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 212 - “Des citoyens et naturels” wherein Vattel is discussing and defining citizenship of a country. See my link below for the correct spelling of the words and punctuation of that key sentence in French, and the correct translation into English which is still the translation of Vattel’s work to this day. See: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Best to ignore the straw-man disinformation that the far-left OBOTS foist here and read what I (or in the case of others) wrote by reading my (or others) works being attacked here directly:

“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

My Translation and Analysis of a Key Sentence in Emer de Vattel’s 1758 Treatise on Natural Law in Section 212 -“Des citoyens et naturels”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/04/15/my-translation-of-a-key-sentence-in-emer-de-vattels-1758-treatise-on-natural-law-in-section-212-des-citoyens-et-naturels/

The Swiss Vattel, who died before the Declaration of Independence, wrote a book in French called The Law of Nations. Vattel's tome was on INTERNATIONAL LAW. International Law is the modern term for what was then called The Law of Nations. Birthers proclaim determinations of U.S. citizenship to be subject to International Law. Perhaps they can explain how a U.S. Citizenship Court in the Hague would function.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, for Law of Nations states succinctly, “See International Law.”

International law per Black’s is,

Those laws governing the legal relations between nations. Rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of nations and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical. Restatement, Foreign Relations (Third) § 101. Body of consensual principles which have evolved from customs and practices civilized nations utilize in regulating their relationships and such customs have great moral force. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matshushita Elec. Co., Ltd., D.C.Pa., 494 F.Supp. 1161, 1178. International customs and treaties are generally considered to be the two most important sources of international law.

INTERNATIONAL LAW has nothing to do with any one nation determining the status of its own citizens. It does not pertain to the internal affairs of a single sovereign. It deals with legal relations between two or more sovereigns.

All of the colonies had birthright citizenship pursuant to the English law. All of the original thirteen states adopted so much of the English common law as was not repugnant to their state constitution. 14A was declarative of the law as it had existed since in Declaration of Independence. It served to place it beyond the reach of Congress to change.

Here is Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Citizenship Clause in the Senate:

Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866

Page 2890

Mr. HOWARD. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing.an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]
Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan will be read.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line nine, after the words "section one," to insert:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.
So that the section will read :
Sec. 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.