I have stated that persons born on US soil, from the founding of our country, to non-citizen immigrant parents, were natural born citizens.
I have acknowledged the denial of this by a few Secretaries of State. This was against the law as it had been from the founding of our country, and it was against PREVIOUS Secretary of State policy, and it was against the previous policy of the United States Attorney General.
In reply to the inquiry which is made by you…whether “the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father’s country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,” I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it.
- Secretary of State William Marcy, 1854
And our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the ” natural born’‘ right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.
- Attorney General Edward Bates, 1862
I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship. I might sustain this opinion by a reference to the well-settled principle of the common law of England on this subject; to the writings of many of the earlier and later commentators on our Constitution and laws; to the familiar practice and usage of the country in the exercise of the ordinary rights and duties of citizenship; to the liberal policy of our government in extending and recognizing these rights, and enforcing these duties; and lastly to the dicta and decisions of many of our national and state tribunals. But all this has been well done by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford, in the case of Lynch vs. Clarke, and I forbear. I refer to his opinion for a full and clear statement of the principle, and of the reasons and authorities for its support.
- Attorney General Edward Bates, 1862
And here's what the former US District Attorney for Pennsylvania had to say, back in 1825:
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
So it is clear that the policies of Secretaries of State in the 1880s and 1890s were new, and in contradiction to how things had always been.
Meanwhile, you claim, "Birthright citizenship wasn't extended to the children of some aliens until the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision."
When challenged, you produce a bit of ill-considered pure dicta that the Court who said it didn't actually mean, which was actually RULED by the US Supreme Court to be a bit of ill-considered pure dicta that the Court who said it didn't actually mean, and the policies of Secretaries of State of the 1880s and 1890s which are clearly in conflict with our country's previous policy.
And you find yourself completely and absolutely unable to produce one single example of any person who was born in the United States to non-citizen immigrant parents, and ruled not to be a citizen at any time prior to 1880.
So congratulations. You've made it clear that you really don't know what you're talking about here, and your claim doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Thank you. That should hammer it down.
Sorry, no.
I have acknowledged the denial of this by a few Secretaries of State.
Exactly. They were executing the 14th Amendment as written and intended. Trumbull and Howard were quite clear about the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement's meaning in the Congressional Record.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, on which the 14th Amendment is based, is also quite clear:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States..."
"The umpire is of the opinion that it is not proved that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. The ground that he is so, is his own statement that he was born at New York, together with a certificate of baptism of a child who was born at New York, Beniguo being one of the names which were given to him; but it is not proved that the child then born and baptised was one and the same person with the claimant. Nor would the mere fact of his having been born at New York be sufficient evidence of citizenship. It is clear that his parents were both aliens at the time of his birth, and it is not shown that they were naturalized or that they or the child remained in the United States. The inference is to the contrary, and the umpire believes that the child in question, even if that child was really the claimant, though born in the United States, was subject to a foreign power and cannot without further proof be considered to be a citizen of the United States"
http://books.google.com/books?id=PM4GAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA2449#v=onepage&q&f=false