Replies

Too bad the WaPo can't cite the case. I can cite a case from more than a century ago that precisely addresses the distinction between subject to the jurisdiction and within the jurisdiction with respect to the 14th Amendment citizenship clause:

As written and ratified, the 14th Amendment was NOT intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign subjects, all protestations of the WaPo to the contrary.

The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Slaughterhouse%20Cases&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

"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."
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

Here is a second source:

"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.

Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

Senator Howard recognized three classes of people to whom the 14th Amendment citizenship clause would not apply: foreigners (tourists here temporarily), aliens (those here illegally but who have no intention of leaving), and foreign diplomats (here legally and in a special protected status who will leave upon the expiration of their term).

And in Section 5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." cedes control of implementing provisions of the Amendment back to Congress. Because the Constitution is a limiting document, the wording of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause means that they MAY NOT grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegals, nor the equivalent.

The confusion lies in the word, "subject." Clearly, in the context of a discussion of citizenship, "subject" refers to the nation of which one is a citizen, a foreign subject. Just because one is within a jurisdiction does not make them a subject.

' The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. '

Ah...! The Washington Compost was pulling a fast one! Very glad you weighed in!

FRegards....

Thanks, you saved me the trouble of citing the Slaughterhouse case, along with finding the original debate materials. I'd be interested in knowing what case they're citing.

THank you. Very clear.
susie

Excellent Post.

Thanks.

I learn something new here at FR everyday.

Thank you for the post. I was always taught that if you are born on US soil, you automaticly are a US citizen. Where did this interpretation of the 14th Admend come from?

Thanks, CO, for your enlightening post which everyone should read, INCLUDING our lawmakers. I'll make sure it gets to those in my state.

Ok, try to follow this. I know it's confusing, but it's worth it.

Firstly --
Justice Miller's aside in the Slaughterhouse Cases is NOT the holding in the case, and therefore has no legal precedential value. In fact, it is thoroughly dismissed in the LATER case cited by the WaPo (US v. Wong Kim Ark), where the majority opinion stated:

"Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, made this remark: 'The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States.' . . . This was wholly aside from the question in judgment, and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities; and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase ...."

In other words, Miller was wrong. And as an "aside" which was not necessary to Miller's holding in that case, it was never law.

The court in Wong Kim Ark went on to say that the real intention of the words "subject to the jurisdiction of" was to exclude "children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,-both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

And why would we want illegal aliens to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? For the same reasons explained by the Wong Kim Ark court:

"The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption 'from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found' were stated as follows: 'When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were . . . not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption."

Got that?

Secondly -
Lets take a look at your second cite -- Senator Jacob Howard. "Foreigners, aliens" is not meant to stand alone, but rather are qualifiers and emphasis for the rest of the sentence -- "who belong to the families of ambassadors" etc.
Otherwise, there would have been an "or" thrown in there.

Thirdly --
"Alien" DOES NOT MEAN "ILLEGAL ALIEN". It is a normal and ordinary synonym for any "non-citizen."

Fourthly --
"Subject"?? Subject is not a noun in this case!!! If you are "subject to the jurisdiction" it means you are within the control of the jurisdiction. Why on earth would you want illegal aliens to be exempt from our laws? (See 1. above)

Glad to be of help.