Replies

Opponents of birthright citizenship argue that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction" means allegiance to the United States as opposed to some other country. This definition is advanced to avoid the conventional understanding that "subject to the jurisdiction" means obligated to obey our nation's laws. This the author accepts but he defines "allegiance" to be equated to "domicile" and makes a compelling case to that effect from the historical record and the cases.

Domicile can be affected by an illegal alien and is not effaced by the fact that the alien is "illegal." Hence, a child born to an illegal alien who has effectuated a domicile, perhaps evidenced as you say by an electric bill, cannot be denied citizenship for her child.

This is to be distinguished, says the author, from tourism babies or what I call drive-by babies because the element of domicile has not been accomplished therefore there is no allegiance and therefore the criterion of "subject to the jurisdiction" has not been satisfied and Congress (and the State Department) is therefore free to treat the baby as a noncitizen.

Further, nothing herein affects the rights of Congress to expel aliens, that is, the parents. But Congress may not legislate with a view to denying "domicile" in an attempt to amend the Constitution which prescribes jus soli rights of birth citizenship as a constitutional matter free of any interference by the Congress which, of course, remains free to regulate naturalization.

Further, nothing herein affects the rights of Congress to expel aliens, that is, the parents. But Congress may not legislate with a view to denying "domicile" in an attempt to amend the Constitution which prescribes jus soli rights of birth citizenship as a constitutional matter free of any interference by the Congress which, of course, remains free to regulate naturalization.

I am of the opinion that the jus soli foundation for American Citizenship is false. That our Break from England in 1776 effectuated a break with it's feudal based rules governing subjects , and that we thereafter did not follow English Common law on this matter. There is quite a bit of evidence to support this position.

I am likewise of the opinion that the reason so many people today believe we followed English Common law was because so many people in the early 19th Century were asserting that we did; Specifically William Rawle in his widely distributed book " A View of the Constitution."

But Rawle was not a Delegate at the Constitutional convention, nor was he a member of any State's ratifying legislature. He was the Son of a British Loyalist during the War for Independence, and received his legal training in England, where he would have been taught nothing else. In addition to that, I have evidence that indicates Rawle deliberately lied about this in the writing of his book.

Most of the people who make the claim that we follow English Common law were not Delegates or Legislators and had nothing to do with adopting the US Constitution.

The Only exception of which I am aware is James Madison during his defense of William Loughton Smith, but Madison himself contradicted this position as President, so you could say he's on both sides of the issue, though I would say his acts as President count for more than his words while trying to support a political ally in Congress.

The people who WERE Constitutional Delegates or members of the Ratifying Legislature indicate that we did NOT follow English Common Law, but rather followed Natural Law as related by Emmerich Vattel.

I would point out that after the treaty of Paris, there were Hundreds of thousands of British Loyalists and their children who did not suddenly become American just because they were born in the US after July 4, 1776. The rule was never applied to Indians, and it was also never applied to slaves.

The jus soli principle is conspicuous in regards to how many exceptions there were to it throughout American History. It had so many exceptions that they had to enact a 14th amendment just to create a de facto jus soli rule.

Obviously Slaves were exempt to it till 1868, and Indians were exempt to it till 1924. A rule with many millions of exemptions is hardly a rule at all.

A snap shot response:
...the conventional understanding that "subject to the jurisdiction" means obligated to obey our nation's laws.

I do not believe it is a “conventional understanding”.
Do you and I agree there is no logical basis for such an interpretation given the clear meaning and definition stated during the debates by the authors of the 14th?

If not, and apart from the legislator’s intent, such an interpretation renders the clause unnecessary and superfluous. Every single person within US boundaries regardless of their legal status, unless granted specific government immunity, is obligated to obey our nation's laws.

(This reminds one of the “blue state – red state” phenomena. Everyone in the 1950’s understood that which constituted a “red state” but the present day meaning became too pointed for some influential operators.)

But Congress may not legislate with a view to denying "domicile" in an attempt to amend the Constitution which prescribes jus soli rights of birth citizenship as a constitutional matter free of any interference by the Congress…

If you are paraphrasing the author’s argument, he overlooks two obvious points:
1. That to be entitled to the benefit of claiming domicile, it cannot have been obtained by unlawful measures.
2. This language in the 14th: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The jus soli/domicile concept was born in the 14th and the legislature reserved the right to address that concept.