OK, let me help you out on this one too, which educating along the way (good book -- Spiro, "Beyond Citizenship"):
The common law rule moved with the colonists to the New World and was adopted by the new republic, if only as applied to whites and matter or custom rather than codified law. After the Constitution was drafted, the first Congress soon extended birth citizenship to the children of American citizen fathers born abroad, which is a limited form of jus sanguinis.
Not all states, and not all citizens wanted jus soli across the board for EVERYONE. And for obvious reasons to the people and events of the time. The issue of birth citizenship stood at the core of the race controversial that the Framers could not resolve. The South, of course, would not have accepted an absolute rule of jus soli, for that would have meant citizenship for the children of slaves -- an expropriation of property, in the plantation view. But the South could not abide by national citizenship even of free blacks and their children. On one hand, slaveholding interests saw free blacks as subversive instigators of slave revolt. Many slave states had what were considered necessary protective measures controlling the activities of free blacks sojourning in their jurisdictions and state territories, in some cases, barring free slaves entry altogether. Such laws would have been CLEARLY unconstitutional at the time had free slaves enjoyed the status of national citizens. On the other hand, antislavery forces would themselves have rejected a rule of jus soli excluding blacks. Although jus soli was the uncontested matter of practice with respect to whites (MOST IMPORTANTLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS WHO OFTEN COULD NOT CLAIM CITIZENSHIP THROUGH PARENTAGE), in the face of the race question, it did not lend itself to political resolution.
The Judicial Resolution? Dred Scott v Sandford, where Scott claimed he became a free man when his owner transported him into a jurisdiction in which slavery was prohibited. For the Court to hear that claim, it would have to determine that IF free, Scott would qualify as citizen. The SCOTUS concluded that blacks, even FREED blacks, could NOT hold US Citizenship.
Dred Scott was one of many things that helped spark the Civil War. The fix became effective in 1868, as Section One (the so-called Citizenship Clause) of the 14th Amendment, which afford "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 14th Amendment DID still leave room for ambiguity with respect to at least THREE significant groups, however. First, were the children of immigrants who were barred from citizenship. Although touched on in Wong Kim Ark in 1898, some rights were not completely granted to this group until 1952. Second, Native American felt should be allowed citizenship under the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In Elk v Wilkins, the SCOTUS felt the Indians owed alliance to their tribes and thus were NOT part of the United States. Congress however extended Native Indians birth citizenship in 1924. Subsequently, that same right has been extended to Puerto Rico, Guam and other US Territories. The third group, Illegal Aliens, has not been decided by the SCOTUS, although it's been assumed for legal and other purposes that one need only proved birth in the US to claim citizenship based upon current immigration laws.
British Nationality Prior to 1983
The British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1 January 1983. Prior to 1983, British nationality was only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married. That can be construed as jus sanguinis or possibly even a type of lex soli in Obama Sr's case, but not jus soli (unless you want to give the Kenyan birth theory credence, which is dubious but possible).
What about "Free, white, male, 21 and a property owner" being required to vote?
While it may have later emerged that there were strong antislavery factions in the North, Northern states had slaves, too, and until there were numerous immigrants to exploit, those slaves were important to the northern economy, but not treated as "citizens".
I am really impressed with your knowledge of history, and the law. That has to be one of if not the best rebuttals I’ve read wrt this case.
Oops, I was so focused on the comments I didn’t realize it was a quote. Still great.hostory lesson though!
#455 amazing! You are doing an incredible job on this issue. Thank you!