The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does it mean? Does it mean anyone born in the United States is automatically an American citizen? Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

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 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 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.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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...[6]

Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration of taking the American Citizenship Oath. James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American jurisdiction. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 [2]. Id. at 2893 [3]. Id. at 2895 [4]. Id. at 2893 [5]. Id. at 2897 [6]. Id. at 1291 [7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.

Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only. Last updated 2/20/05.

If you're on American soil, you're under American jurisdiction unless specifically granted other status.

Were this not the case, we would have no legal basis to bring foreigners who commit crimes on our soil into our courts.

Any 1st year history student knows that children are minors and have no legal standing. They are under the authority of their parents, who being legal citizens of a country, are automatically a legal obligation of their parent's country.

The U.S. is probably (100%) the only country in the world to offer citizenship to children born to illegal criminals.

Absurd!

"The Fourteenth Amendment was a botch-job of major proportions, and this may be one more example of that principle. Bottom line: don't make hasty assumptions in either direction on this point."

I agree. I have no doubt that from what the writers of this amendment have said in various places that they did NOT want the children of non-citizens to become automatic citizens if they were born here. And I agree; I don't think it should be that easy either. I wish they had used clearer language and just said *the complete jurisdiction*. As it is stated now, it's too ambiguous; it could mean what they said, or it could mean what it has been accepted as too. I would prefer a more direct statement.

23 posted on 04/24/2005 9:45:18 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Theft is taking something you don't own and you didn't pay for without permission.)

OK so be it. Establish a means to care for these children. Deport the parents. I suspect the problem will take care of itself. (Most will leave with their children) and go home.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside".

Alternative interpretation:

A child born in the US whose parents are illegal aliens is immediately subject to our jurisdiction. Illegal aliens are non-entities, therefore the child is a legal orphan. The parents have the option of claiming the child without citizenship or giving it up for adoption. Either way the parents go back home.

Cruel world, ain't it?

"OK so be it. Establish a means to care for these children."

I don't understand the statement. No need to respond. The issue is citizenship. Children have no legal standing. Their status is the same as their parents until they reach legal age. Therefore, they are illegal aliens.

Bundle them with their parents and ship them back. Let the barbarian countries deal with their wards.

I was told by a young Coast Guard ensign (female) that, during the Haitian crisis, the Hatians who were rescued from their ramshackle flotilla would have sex onboard the deck of their rescuing U.S. ships with women in their late stages of pregnancy. Reason being, besides the obvious, was that they though that the sex would induce labor and the child born on the deck of a U.S. ship would become an automatic U.S. citizen.

Can someone please tell me why?

Suppose we were to declare that as the US has complete jurisdiction over all babies born in the US, we will take custody of them and put them in orphanages when their parents are not Americans. Do you think that would fly?

It's about time.

This idea of being a citizen just because you were dropped on this soil is killing our country.

If the Supreme court will not rule correctly, they should be removed from office.

I for the life of me cannot figure out why the Republicans cannot see this issue as one of the main issues that the American People want action on.

If they do not act, they will be out of here.

Ridiculous. The 14th Amendment says what it says, not what it doesn't say, regardless of the intent of its authors.

If you're on American soil, you're under American jurisdiction unless specifically granted other status.

Were this not the case, we would have no legal basis to bring foreigners who commit crimes on our soil into our courts.

Are you implying that illegals have the same Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens?

You open borders people are failing to grasp something here. We have all the damn illegal aliens we need. No doubt we will have a hard time getting rid of the ones we have but we damn sure don't want anymore. We can't afford em!!! They show up with their hands out and their pockets empty. At some point we are going to have to bring this invasion to a stop. I am sorry but we just can't take on Mexico's over breeding problem. If they out grow their resources they will just have to get a grip.

I am somewhat opposite...

I was born in West Germany when my dad was deployed over there in 1980. I had, until I was 18, both United States (born to a serviceman overseas) and German citizenship. Of course I picked the US citizenship, but this isnt just a US thing.

The founding fathers didn't ever envision immigration being stymied. And for good reason.

(IMO) These anti-immigration attitudes are symptomatic of the protectionist nature and another symptom of BIG government. I think illegals contribute far more then they take away from society and boost our economy.

Let people come here and create wealth. We are the light that lights the world.

(easy on the flaming...:))

lol - if true, funny.

Also heard that they (maybe only cubans) will dive overboard and swim if they are close to shore, and do anything to evade the coast guard knowing that as soon as their feet touch land they can stay.

Do any legal types out there have a clue as to what court decision established that the children of the persons actually listed could claim citizenship?

Cannot find any. In fact, through 1898 the Supreme Court consistently ruled the opposite. Even Native Americans born on reservations were deemed not to be US Citizens.

Link

..regardless of the intent of its authors.

So then "intent" is irrelevant? Please explain that contradiction. Be sure to include your "intent" and whether it is to be considered as being relevant to your reply.

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.