"From the first organization of the National Government under the Constitution, the naturalization acts of the United States, in providing for the admission of aliens to citizenship by judicial proceedings, uniformly required every applicant to have resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and thus applied the words "under the jurisdiction of the United States" to aliens residing here before they had taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, or had renounced allegiance [p687] to a foreign government."
"These opinions go to show that, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the executive branch of the Government, the one charged with the duty of protecting American citizens abroad against unjust treatment by other nations, has taken the same view of the act of Congress of 1855, declaring children born abroad of American citizens to be themselves citizens, which, as mentioned in a former part of this opinion, the British Foreign Office has taken of similar acts of Parliament -- holding that such statutes cannot, consistently with our own established rule of citizenship by birth in this country, operate extraterritorially so far as to relieve any person born and residing in a foreign country and subject to its government, from his allegiance to that country."
"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, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides..."
Hate to break it to you patlin, but the US Supreme Court has long since ruled against your interpretation.
no linky, no credit....IT IS A WELL KNOWN ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE OF YOURS & JAMESEE, THAT YOU BOTH MINE QUOTE & TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT!
with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers
Mr Rogers, YOU put these words in bold, NOT me. Thank you for qualifying my position that the 14th EXCLUDES children born to any foreigner, whether a minister of the govt of that foreign nation or not.
Jamese & Rogers at bat record this evening....A BIG FAT ZERO!
Nice quote mining by Binney & Gray, the original text of the Calvin case wherein they take that quote reads as follows:
Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the Kings part, so there is a local ligeance of the subjects part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the Kings protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori[52. Ed.: so much the more so.] he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.[53. Ed.: local allegiance is something mean and small, and extremely uncertain.] And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,[54. Ed.: neither the climate (lit. sky) nor the soil.] neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf0462-01_footnote_nt_446
Interesting that the qoute from WKA was taken from Coke's explanation of what Ligeantia localis (local allegiance) is, not that of what a natural born is. Just more obsfucating of common law & thus the reason Gray & the court never declared WKA to be a natural born.
“is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen” . . . but NOT a natural born.