Posted on 08/13/2020 1:47:22 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
It matters not where McCain was born but the fact that both his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth. His father was active duty military stationed in Panama at that time. What US citizen would be willing to serve overseas if their children born there would not be considered NBC?
You are wrong on the law. The law in effect for births in Panama when McCain was born was an unintended logical blunder, but it was the law.
For children born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, their claim to citizenship is determined by whatever federal law is applicable to their place of birth at the time of their birth.
John McCain claimed to have been born August 29, 1936 in the Canal Zone in the hospital at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Coco Solo. That hospital did not yet exist in 1936. The nationality law in effect was Public Law #250 of May 24, 1934. The first section of the law is the screwed up but relevant part:
73d CONGRESS- SESS. II. CH, 344. MAY 24, 1934.[CHAPTER 344.
AN ACT
To amend the Law relative to citizenship and naturalization, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1993 of the Revised Statutes is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 1993. Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as presented by the Bureau of Naturalization.”
[...]
The 14th Amendment covers those born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. The logic of Congress left McCain in limbo. The treaty with Panama allowed the United States to exercise jurisdiction as if it were the sovereign. Panama remained the sovereign. It was Panamanian territory under United States jurisdiction.
McCain was, in all liklihood, born off base at the local hospital about 100 yards outside the base. If he was born in the Canal Zone, he was born outside the territory of the United States and not covered by the 14th Amendment, but born within the jurisdiction of the United States and not covered by the statute of May 24, 1934. That is not what Congress meant to do, but it is what they did.
The error was caught and the statute was amended by the Act of August 4, 1937.
AN ACTRelating to the citizenship of certain classes of persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
SEC. 2. Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, is declared to be a citizen of the United States .
Approved, August 4, 1937.
If born in the Canal Zone, the Act of August 4, 1937 certainly made John McCain a U.S. citizen. But could it change an alien birth to natural born citizen?
If McCain were born in the Colon hospital, as is likely, he was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and the Act of May 24, 1934 would have made him a citizen at birth. It would also have made the story in his autobiography a load of crap. John McCain never produced a birth certificate, and searches of Canal Zone records produced no birth certificate. The matter was not judicially resolved, but rather a non-binding Senate Resolution was passed, burying the embarrassing 1934 Congressional flub.
There is no special status to birth on a military base overseas. If it is on foreign land, the birth is outside the territory of the United States.
(“The sooner you file the sooner it can get thrown out for lack of standing.”)
Who has standing?
Whose responsibility is it to enforce the qualifications for the office? Congress?
Let’s say K.H. was only 33 yoa (hypothetically speaking). Who declares her unqualified?
I’m glad she’s openly questioning this and we should be supportive of her efforts. If you believe she is eligible, support the effort to prove you’re correct, if you believe she’s not eligible, support the effort to end the practice. Don’t let the left Alinsky us on Harris like they did on Obama!
That is the unknown. I think Pence would if he lost but I am honestly not sure about even that.
Whose responsibility is it to enforce the qualifications for the office? Congress?
Certainly not Congress, separation of powers would see to that. The Constitution is silent on the subject.
Let’s say K.H. was only 33 yoa (hypothetically speaking). Who declares her unqualified?
For something that obvious the states would keep her off the ballot. They have done so in the past with fringe candidates who met every qualification except age.
But you're talking an obvious disqualification. Just because Harris doesn't meet your definition of natural born citizen doesn't mean she isn't qualified. Look at these birther threads; you have almost as many definitions of natural-born citizen as you have posters. You don't think she's qualified? Fine, prove it. Produce a Supreme Court decision that definitively show she isn't a natural-born citizen. But you can't because no such decision exists. And the reason for that is the definition of natural-born citizen has never been brought before the Supreme Court. Oh people can quote the Minor decision and the Ark decision but those comments were made in dicta and are not binding. Until such a decision is handed down then nothing makes Harris wrong and you right.
“”She has dual citizenship because Jamaica recognizes children born to their citizens—no matter where they are born.””
Is that unique to Jamaica? I have no idea. My husband’s father and all aunts/uncles except for one born in Hungary was born in Canada but my husband isn’t a dual citizen...
I have a hunch we’re in for a “bumpy” ride with this subject.
The real crime here is suggesting that kamel should answer a question about anything.
“”my husband isn’t a dual citizen...””
Not entirely clear - should have said - born in the US and isn’t a dual citizen.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States [emphasis added] and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Regarding possible ambiguities in 14th Amendment (14A) concerning Harris’ citizenship, first, Harris is at least a naturalized citizen imo.
On the other hand, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14A, had indicated, on at least two occasions, that in addition to being born on soil controlled by the US, the parents of a person need to be full US citizens when that citizen is born before that person can be legally regarded as a natural born citizen.
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens [emphasis added]. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862) (See 2nd half of 1st column.)
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is [emphasis added], in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend. (See top half of 2nd column.)
So based on what I understand about the immigration status of Harris’s parents when she was born, neither parent a citizen, it remains that Harris is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Next, beware of some seeming slight-of-hand about the Supreme Court's alleged interpretation of soil and citizenship from the excerpt below from the referenced article.
"He also argued that while the modern view of citizenship includes every person born on American soil, that belief started after Harris was born in 1964. ‘Indeed, the Supreme Court has that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen,' he also wrote [emphasis added]"
More specifically, regardless that the Supreme Court is alleged to have argued that being born on US soil satisfies citizenship requirements, based on the excerpts from the congressional record above, activist justices seem to be wrongly lowering the bar for requirements to be a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen, from the bench imo.
Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government desperate Democrats and RINOs home in November!
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a "third term" in office imo.
Which is why pelosi wanted Karen Bass as VP.
Thanks for your detailed reply.
Admittedly I took civics in high school but graduated in the 1800’s 8-) when this issue was less muddy than it is now. The big takeaway was the citizenship status of BOTH parents to be considered NBC. That is the disqualifier for Cruz, Harris, Obama, Haley etc
Well, according to prior SCOTUS ruling, she isn’t qualify. She is simply an anchor baby.
Born in country to non-citizen parents = Born in country to citizen parentsFalse!
If True, that an anchor baby (born in country to foreign citizen parents) is a “Natural Born Citizen“, then what is the term for someone born in country to Citizen parents?
On the other hand, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14A,[...]
Corrections, insights welcome.
Corrections and insights follow.
At the time of the 14th Amendment, there was no such thing as an anchor baby or illegal alien, so such were not a concern.
The quote from Rep. Bingham comes from debate on the House floor of March 9, 1866. See Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1291. Therein, Rep. Bingham expressed his opposition to the Civil Rights bill as unconstitutionally beyond the powers of the Congress.
Neither Rep. Bingham, nor his March, 9, 1866 quote had anything to do with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Rep. Bingham's remarks were in reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause which had yet to be introduced.
When the Citizenship Clause was introduced, it was in the Senate as an amendment to the House text of the then-proposed 14th Amendment which contained no Citizenship Clause as sent to the Senate. The Senate amendment adding a Citizenship Clause to the House-proposed text was offered by its author, Sen. Jacob Howard, on May 30, 1866.
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 9, 1866, pp. 1290-1291:
Page 1290RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
The House, agreeably to order, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 61) entitled "An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication;" on which Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, was entitled to the floor.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I yield thirty minutes of my time to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Bingham.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it.may be said that the objections which I deem it to be my duty to urge against the passage of the bill pending before the House apply to the instructions I have introduced by way of amendment to the pending motion to recommit; but I have this to say to gentlemen on that subject. Admitting that the objections do apply to the nstructions which I have had the honor to submit by way of amendment to the pending motion, ]f the gentleman who reports the bill urges these objections against the instructions tor its amendment, it is a confession, sir, on his own part that this bill ought not to pass with or without amendment. The House by recommitting with the instructions proposed will not be concluded but may finally reject the bill as imended or reject the amendments proposed md substitute others which may be less objectionable.
Mr. Speaker, on that subject I beg leave further to say, that although the objections which I urge against the bill must, in the very ature of the case, apply to the proposed in-
- - - - - - - - -
structions, I venture to say no candid man, no right-minded man, will deny that by amending as proposed the bill will be less oppressive, and therefore less objectionable. Doubting, as I do, the power of Congress to pass the bill, I urge the instructions with a view to take from the bill what seems to me its oppressive.and I might say its unjust provisions;
Mr. Speaker, the instructions moved by me are these:
[...]
Having said this much, Mr. Speaker, I proceed to present to the consideration of the House my objections to the bill. And, first, I beg gentlemen to consider that I do not oppose any legislation which is authorized by the Constitution of my country to enforce in its letter and its spirit the bill of rights as embodied in that Constitution. I know that the enforcement of the bill of rights is the want of the Republic. I know if it had been enforced in good faith in every State of the Union the calamities and conflicts and crimes and sacrifices of the past five years would have been impossible.
But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of the Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in view of the manifest and declared intent of the men who framed it, the enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty and property of every citizen of the Republic within every organized State of the Union, is of the reserved powers of the States, to be enforced by State tribunals and by State officials acting under the solemn obligations of an oath imposed upon them by the Constitution of the United States. Who can doubt this conclusion who considers the words of the Constitution: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?" The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to punish offenses against the life, liberty, or property of the citizen in the States, nor does it prohibit that power to the States, but leaves it as the reserved power of the States, to be by them exercised.
Mr. Speaker, I would further remark in this connection, I honor the mover of this bill for the purpose he seeks to attain, which is to compel the exercise in good faith by the States of this reserved power. I cast no reflection upon the honorable committee of this House, in seeking to remedy, if possible, the great wrongs that have hitherto been inflicted upon citizens of the United States, I may say in almost every State of the Union, by State authority, and inflicted, too, in the past, without redress. I am with him in an earnest desire to have the bill of rights in your Constitution enforced everywhere. But I ask that it be enforced in accordance with the Constitution of my country.
Has the Congress of the United States the power to pass and enforce the bill as it comes to us from the committee? Has the Congress of the United States the power to declare, as this bill does declare, in the words which I propose to strike out, that there shall be no discrimination of civil rights among citizens of the United States in any State of the United States, on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him. But while this is admitted, can you declare by congressional enactment as to citizens of the United States within the States that there shall be no discrimination among them of civil rights?
[...]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Senator Jacob Howard, U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866
39th Congress, First Session
Congressional Globe, at page 2765, second column
Debate spans pages 2764-2771
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was read as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring.) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:Article —.
Sec. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridgo the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without duo process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever, in any State, the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion whioh the number of suoh male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age.
Sec. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vico President of the United States.
Sec. 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall assumo or pay any debt or obligation already incurred, or whioh may hereafter bo incurred, in aid of insurrection or of war against the United States, or any claim for compensation for loss of in vol untary service or labor.
Sec. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.
Absent was the Citizenship Clause in the House version of the proposed text of 14th Amendment.
Here is Sen. Jacob Howard addressing the first section of that House text.
It is not, perhaps, very easy to define with accuracy what is meant by the expression, "citizen of the United States," although that expression occurs twice in the Constitution, once in reference to the President of the United States, in which instance it is declared that none but a citizen of the United States shall be President, and again in reference to Senators, who are likewise to be citizens of the United States. Undoubtedly the expression is used in both those instances in the same sense in which it is employed in the amendment now before us. A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws. Before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, the citizens of each State were, in a qualified sense at least, aliens to one another, for the reason that the several States before that event were regarded by each other as independent Governments, each one possessing a sufficiency of sovereign power to enable it to claim the right of naturalization; and, undoubtedly, each one of them possessed for itself the right of naturalizing foreigners, and each one, also, if it had seen fit so to exercise its sovereign power, might have declared the citizens of every other State to be aliens in reference to itself. With a view to prevent such confusion and disorder, and to put the citizens of the several States on an equality with each other as to all fundamental rights, a clause was introduced in the Constitution declaring that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."The effect of this clause was to constitute ipso facto the citizens of each one of the original States citizens of the United States. And how did they antecedently become citizens of the several States? By birth or by naturalization. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. They are, by constitutional right, entitled to these privileges and immunities, and may assert this right and these privileges and immunities, and ask for their enforcement whenever they go within the limits of the several States of the Union.
And here is Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Citizenship Clause in the Senate:
Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866
Mr. HOWARD. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing.an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]
Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan will be read.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line nine, after the words "section one," to insert:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.So that the section will read :
Sec. 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they resideNo State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge tho privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person oflifc, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction tho equal protection of the laws.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians. I move, therefore, to amend the amendment -- I presume he will have no objection to it -- by inserting after the word "thereof" the words "excluding Indians not taxed." The amendment would then read:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.Mr. HOWARD. I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.
Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of "citizenship of the United States." What does it mean? What is its length and breadth? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.
It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. An elector is one who is chosen by the people to perform that function, just the same as an officer is one chosen by the people to exercise the franchises of an office. Now, I should like to know, because really I have been puzzled for a long while and have been unable to determine exactly, either from conversation with those who ought to know, who have given this subject their attention, or from the decisions of the Supreme Court, the lines and boundaries which circumscribe that phrase, "citizen of the United States." What is it?
So far as the courts and the administration of the laws are concerned, I have supposed that every human being within their jurisdiction was in one sense of the word a citizen, that is, a person entitled to protection; but in so far as the right to hold property, particularly the right to acquire title to real estate, was concerned, that was a subject entirely within the control of the States. It has been so considered in the State of Pennsylvania; and aliens and others who acknowledge no allegiance, either to the State or to the General Government, may be limited and circumscribed in that particular. I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it wore overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of Cal-
- - - - -
ifornia are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point.
As I understand the rights of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the United States. She cannot forbid his entrance; but unquestionably, if she was likely to be invaded by a flood of Australians or people from Borneo, man-eaters or cannibals if you please, she would have the right to say that those people should not come there. It depends upon the inherent character of the men. Why, sir, there are nations of people with whom theft is a virtue and falsehood a merit. There are people to whom polygamy is as natural as monogamy is with us. It is utterly impossible that these people can meet together and enjoy their several rights and privileges which they suppose to be natural in the same society; and it is necessary, a part of the nature of things, that society shall be more or less exclusive. It is utterly and totally impossible to mingle all the various families of men, from the lowest form of the Hottentot up to the highest Caucasian, in the same society.
It must be evident to every man intrusted with the power and duty of legislation, and qualified to exercise it in a wise and temperate mannor, that these things cannot be; and in my judgment there should be some limitation, some definition to this term "citizen of the United States." What is it? Is it simply to put a man in a condition that he may be an elector in one of the States? Is it to put him in a condition to have the right to enter the United States courts and sue? Or is it only that he is entitled as a sojourner to the protection of the laws while he is within and under the jurisdiction of the courts? Or is it to set him upon some pedestal, some position, to put him out of the reach of State legislation and State power?
Sir, I trust I am as liberal as anybody toward the rights of all people, but I am unwilling, on the part of my State, to give up the right that she claims, and that she may exercise, and exercise before very long, of expelling a certain number of people who invade her borders; who owe to her no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own -- an imperium in imperio; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go, and whose sole merit is a universal swindle; who delight in it, who boast of it, and whose adroitness and cunning is of such a transcendent character that no skill can serve to correct it or punish it; I mean the Gypsies. They wander in gangs in my State. They follow no ostensible pursuit for a livelihood. They trade horses, tell fortunes, and things disappear mysteriously. Where they came from nobody knows. Their very origin is lost in mystery. No man today can tell from whence the Zingara come or whither they go, but it is understood that they are a distinct people. They never intermingle with any other. They never intermarry with any other. I believe there is no instance on record where a Zingara woman has mated with a man of any other race, although it is true that sometimes the males of that race may mate with the females of others; but I think there is no case in history where it can be found that a woman of that race, so exclusive are they, and so strong are their sectional antipathies, has been known to mate with a man of another race. These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society. They impose upon the simple and the weak everywhere. Are those people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? I mean as a class. If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it: and I think it will be mischievous. I think the honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not know that anybody would agree to that. It is true that our race are not subjected to dangers from that quarter, because we are the strongest, perhaps; but there is a race in contact with this country which, in all characteristics except that of simply making fierce war, is not only our equal, but perhaps our superior. I mean the yellow race; the Mongol race. They outnumber us largely. Of their industry, their skill, and tlieir pertinacity in all worldly affairs, nobody can doubt. They are our neighbors. Recent improvement, the age of fire, has brought their coasts almost in immediate contact with our own. Distance is almost annihilated. They may pour in their millions upon our Pacific coast in a very short time. Are the States to lose control over this immigration? Is the United States to determine that they are to be citizens? I wish to be understood that I consider those people to have rights just the same as we have, but not rights in connection with our Government. If I desire the exercise of my rights I ought to go to my own people, the people of my own blood and lineage, people of the same religion, people of the same beliefs and traditions, and not thrust myself in upon a society of other men entirely different in all those respects from myself. I would not claim that right. Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies. I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow-citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit.
Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I have failed to learn, from what the Senator has said, what relation what he has said has to the first section of the constitutional amendment before us; but that part of the question I propose leaving to the honorable gentleman who has charge of this resolution. As, however, the State of California has been so carefully guarded from time to time by the Senator from Pennsylvania and others, and the passage, not only of this amendment, but of tho so-called civil rights bill, has been deprecated because of its pernicious influence upon society in California, owing to the contiguity of the Chinese and Mongolians to that favored land, I may be excused for saying a few words on the subject.
If my friend from Pennsylvania, who professes to know all about Gypsies and little about Chinese, knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypies, (and which I concede to him, for I know nothing to the contrary,) he would not be alarmed in our behalf because of the operation of the proposition before the Senate, or even the proposition contained in the civil rights bill, so far as it involves the Chinese and us.
The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.
Now, I will say, for the benefit of my friend, that he may know something about the Chinese in future, that this portion of our population, namely, the children of Mongolian parentage, born in California, is very small indeed, and never promises to be large, notwithstanding our near neighborhood to the Celestial land. The habits of those people, and their religion, appear to demand that they all return to their own country at some time or other, either alive or dead. There are, perhaps, in California today about forty thousand Chinese -- from forty to forty-five thousand. Those persons return invariably, while others take their places, and, as I before observed, if they do not return alive their bones are carefully gathered up and sent back to the Flowery Land. It is not an unusual circumstance that the clipper ships trading between San Francisco and China carry at a time three or four hundred human remains of these Chinese. When interred in our State they are not interred deep in the earth, but laid very near the surface, and then mounds of earth are laid over them, so that the process of disinterment is very easy. That is their habit and custom; and as soon as they are fit for transmission to their own country they are taken up with great regularity and sent there. None of their bones are allowed to remain. They will return, then, either living or dead.
Another feature connected with them is, that they do not bring their females to our country but in very limited numbers, and rarely ever in connection with families; so that their progeny in California is very small indeed. From the description we have had from the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania of the Gypsies, the progeny of all Mongolians in California is not so formidable in numbers as that of the Gypsies in Pennsylvania. We are not troubled with them at all. Indeed, it is only in exceptional cases that they have children in our State: and therefore the alarming aspect of the application of this provision to California, or any other land to which the Chinese may come as immigrants, is simply a fiction in the brain of persons who deprecate it, and that alone.
I wish now to address a few words to what the Senator from Pennsylvania has said as to the rights that California may claim as against the incursion of objectionable population from other States and countries. The State of California at various times has passed laws restrictive of Chinese immigration. It will be remembered that the Chinese came to our State, as others did from all parts of the world, to gather gold in large quantities, it being found there. The interference with our own people in the mines by them was deprecated by and generally objectionable to the miners in California. The Chinese are re-
- - - - -
garded, also, not with favor as an addition to the population in a social point of view; not that there is any intercourse between the two classes of persons there, but they are not regarded as pleasant neighbors; their habits are not of a character that make them at all an inviting class to have near you, and the people so generally regard them. But in their habits otherwise, they are a docile, industrious people, and they are now passing from mining into other branches of industry and labor. They are found employed as servants in a great many families and in the kitchens of hotels; they are found as farm hands in the fields; and latterly they are employed by thousands -- indeed, I suppose there are from six to seven thousand of them now employed in building the Pacific railroad. They are there found to be very valuable laborers, patient and effective; and, I suppose, before the present year closes, ten or fifteen thousand of them, at least, will be employed on that great work.
The State of California has undertaken, at different times, to pass restrictive statutes as to the Chinese. The State has imposed a tax on their right to work the mines, and collected it ever since the State has been organized -- a tax of four dollars a month on each Chinaman; but the Chinese could afford to pay that and still work in the mines, and they have done so. Various acts have been passed imposing a poll tax or head tax, a capitation tax, upon their arrival at the port of San Francisco; but all such laws, when tested before the supreme court of the State of California, the supreme tribunal of that people, have been decided to be unconstitutional and void.
Mr. HOWARD. A very just and constitutional decision, undoubtedly.
Racist xenophobe.
The big takeaway was the citizenship status of BOTH parents to be considered NBC. That is the disqualifier for Cruz, Harris, Obama, Haley etc
There is no court holding of such a thing.
There are two classes of citizen, natural and naturalized. Natural citizens acquire citizenship at birth. Naturalized citizens are not citizens at birth but later acquire citizenship pursuant to federal law applicable to the time and place of birth.
The Constitution controls citizenship determination for all born within the United States. All persons born withih the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States. There is not a mumbling word about parents or their citizenship status.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birthThe following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
[...]
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
8 FAM 300
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
8 FAM 301
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP
8 FAM 301.1
(U) ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
Subject to its jurisdiction simply means subject to its laws. If aliens in the U.S. were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they could rape and murder and could not be prosecuted.
A natural citizen is a born citizen, or as John Jay put it to George Washington, a "natural born citizen." A natural born citizen is one that is born a citizen, as opposed to one who was born an alien and later obtained citizenship through naturalization.
When Trump’s own Chief of Staff appears on TV and says that Harris is eligible the point becomes moot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.