To overturn the Dred Scott decision. Just as the 19th Amendment was added to overturn Minor v. Happersett
“As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark
"Why did the Minor decision say there were doubts about the citizenship of those persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents??"
Even going back to the Founding era, there was not unanimity of thought on birthright citizenship. During the Dr. David Ramsay v. William L. Smith trial in the House of Representatives, James Madison argued for birthright citizenship, while Representative Jackson of Georgia argued against it.
"And why did the Wong Kim Ark decision say that natural-born citizens were defined outside of the Constitution but declare that the separate term of "citizenship by birth" was defined strictly by the 14th amendment??"
Not sure what you mean by this. Justice Gray says that "citizenship by birth" goes back to the founding and earlier.
“In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America”
And later,
“It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad… Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark
And he finishes with a statement that the 14th Amendment affirms the what existed before it was passed.
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"
IOW, because it wasn't universally accepted what you want NBC to mean PRIOR to the passage of the 14th amendment. Thanks for helping to prove this point.
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
Right, and in regards to defining NBC, nobody is saying the 14th amendments imposes "new restrictions" nor is anyone saying it "prevents any person from becoming citizens by .. birth" before the adoption of the 14th amendment. We still have Minor saying that there were TWO classes of persons who were considered citizens at birth. One was without doubt and were categorized exclusively as natural-born citizens. The other class had doubts.
Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark
Thanks Justice Gray for acknowledging the doubts brought up by the Minor decision and these doubts did NOT just apply to blacks.
Even going back to the Founding era, there was not unanimity of thought on birthright citizenship. During the Dr. David Ramsay v. William L. Smith trial in the House of Representatives, James Madison argued for birthright citizenship, while Representative Jackson of Georgia argued against it.
Yes ... because birthright naturally flows through the father. This is why natural-born citizen is defined as children born to parents who are citizens.
Not sure what you mean by this. Justice Gray says that "citizenship by birth" goes back to the founding and earlier.
Yes, it goes back further in English common law. As a general principle of U.S. law, not so much. As you've just noted, there was a lot of disagreement over the concept. But to show what I was talking about, here's a direct quote to help you understand better:
But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Do you see it ... "defined IN the Constitution" and then Gray prefaces this type of birth as "subject to the jurisdcition thereof" ... Notice how this is much different than how he described natural-born citizenship:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
Gray cites Waite in the Minor decision. The Minor court construed the 14th amendment and said the Constitution does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. The 14th amendment is IN the Constitution, thus the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.
“In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America”
Right, the law of ENGLAND was the law of the ENGLISH COLONIES. This doesn't say it's U.S. law. That doesn't happen until the 14th amendment is passed, at least according to Gray.
“It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad… Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark
This sounds good, but it doesn't really mean too much. All Gray is saying that there's nothing in the law to prevent or counter the effect of the passage of the 14th amendment which then establishes the rule as U.S. law. It doesn't mean that he thinks citizenship by birth was the universal law in the U.S. prior to the 14th amendment. He's just saying there was no legislation to contradict the 14th amendment being passed. If the rule was universal, we wouldn't have needed the 14th amendment. "(A)ll blacks, as well as whites" would have been recognized as citizens already.
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"
Thanks again. This quote really helps drive home why Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen and may not even be a citizen. The "fundamental rule," as Gray calls it, actually isn't that fundamental. It only goes back a couple hundred years prior to the founding of the U.S. It sounds good, but it's melodrama. Second, note the clause ... "includng all children here born of resident aliens." Why didn't Gray just including all persons born within the jurisdiction?? He stresses birth to resident aliens. Obama was NOT born to resident aliens. His father was NOT admitted into this country with resident alien status. His mother's citizenship status is irrelevant under the 14th amendment because the 14th amendment doesn't consider citizenship status of parents. Gray applied it to those aliens who had resident status. He gives several quotes to show that "subject to the jurisdiciton" means aliens who reside in the U.S.
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.
- - -
It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution
- - -
In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Interestingly, Gray cites this passage from the New Jersey Supreme Court:
The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens. The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens.
This court says the the general rule is that "when the parents are DOMICILED here," birth establishes the right to citizenship under the 14th amendment. The white people who were born here to parents who weren't citizens were NOT subject to the jurisdiction, according to this ruling. This destroys the idea that birth within the jurisdiction is sufficient to make someone a natural-born citizen. This was the rule that applied to white people PRIOR to the 14th amendment it says, which should then be applied to black people AFTER the 14th amendment was passed. They had to be born to either citizen parents OR resident aliens, but as we know thanks to Minor, only ONE of these is characterized as natural-born citizens ... and the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.