Posted on 08/27/2015 7:23:36 AM PDT by dangus
The chattering class insists that the 14th amendment automatically grants citizenship to children of illegal aliens. They do this by relying on the public's ignorance of the 14th amendment and the obscurity of the meaning of "under the jurisdiction thereof. The author of the 14th amendment was very clear when he proposed it, however:
"This amendment, which I have offered is simply declaratory ... that every person born within 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, ..."
The problem is that the mainstream media either omit the pasage "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or lead their audience to falsely presume what it means to be subject to a jurisdiction.
Foreigners are subject to U.S. law while residing in the United States because the land they are on are the jurisdiction of the United States. But citizens are also the jurisdiction of the United States, not just land. Foreigners, even those in the United States, are only the jurisdiction of the United States where that jurisdiction has been granted by their home country under the terms of their entry.
If that sounds too abstract, let's look at simple examples:
EXAMPLE 1: Joe is sent to war in Vietnam, and doesn't return. Vietnam claims he is dead. Is he legally dead? Not until the United States declares him legally dead. He was in Vietnam, but he was under US jurisdiction, not Vietnamese.
EXAMPLE TWO: Bill sleeps with a sixteen-year-old while visiting Elbonia. Under Elbonian law, this is statutory rape. He is tried in Elbonia, not because HE is under Elbonian jurisdiction, but because he is on land within Elbonian jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE THREE: Elbonia passes a law granting divorce without spousal consent. Bob wants to divorce Maria. So he goes to Elbonia. But Elbonia will not grant him the divorce, because they respect that Bob is under American jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE FOUR: This gets tricky: Fatima is granted a divorce from Ali, and moves to America. She and her daughter become citizens, and convert to Christianity. Then Elbonistan rules that because she has become Christian, she loses custody rights. Both the U.S. and Elbonistan claim jurisdiction over Fatima's daughter.
By coming here illegally they DO NOT have consent to be here, and having a baby here does not change that.
Citizenship is not a game of 'catch me if you can'.. if you make it across the line and give birth you score a goal and the country cannot touch you AND has to pay all your bills and give you 'benefits'.
I demand we get all our money back from those getting checks in other countries because they came, they birthed, they went back home...........and now get financial assistance
But how was it actually written?
Section 1. All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I don’t like it but like the 2nd it seems very clear.
You seem to pass over the words “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.”
Legislative intent is always considered when the language has ambiguities. The author of the amendment is giving specifics of what he intended. The intent allows us and the courts to go beyond the mere words. The vaguery of the phrase "...subject to the jurisdiction..." opens the door to exploring intent.
“AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Conjunction junction, what’s your function?
If you are a citizen of Country X, and country X is not the US, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (from a citizenship law view).
The authors of this amendment were very clear...you can’t just show up and raid our treasury to sustain your lifestyle.
But how was it actually written?
Section 1. All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I don’t like it but like the 2nd it seems very clear.
******************************************************************************************************
Apparently the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are not clear TO YOU. That’s why the words explaining the INTENT of the Section 1 author were highlighted in yellow. Is the word “alien” clear to you? Or the words “illegal aliens”? They have very specific legal meanings and those meanings have application to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
US and Canada ONLY Developed Nations to Offer Birthright Citizenship=> UK, France, Ireland Threw Out the Law
Did this part NOT register with you?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;q=quick;s=14th
“Section 1. All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Why highlight BORN and not “SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF”? An alien by definition is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the the United States. The “BORN” concept is coordinated with and limited by the “JURISDICTION” concept. You CANNOT separate the two. You can’t pick and choose words you prefer in a signed contract; they all go together.
"and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States."
At first blush. United States v Wong Kim seems to establish that all children born on US soil, even of aliens, are granted citizenship. But the actual text clarifies an important point:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.Now, illegal aliens may not be an occupying army, and as Christians we would pause before labeling them enemies, but the point is that their loyalty remains to their homeland, not to the United States, as they have neither renounced their prior citizenship, nor taken any action towards aquiring U.S. citizenship, nor acquiesced to U.S. law upon entering the U.S. So even if they're not included in the precise wording of who was denied U.S. citizenship at birth ("enemies", "foreign diplomats," etc.), they are certainly included in the reasoning of who was denied U.S. citizenship at birth ("not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction" of the government*.) *In the quote, the government is represented by the King, but the context clearly intends to apply that to the U.S. government.
Some more Resources for this:
The Book
“Citizenship of the United States”
by Frederick Van Dyne, LL. M.
Assistant Solicitor of the Department of State of the United States
Published 1909
Archive.org has a copy you can download.
https://ia600400.us.archive.org/5/items/citizenshipunit00goog/citizenshipunit00goog.pdf
SENATOR JACOB HOWARD, SPEECH
INTRODUCING THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT
Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866
http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Howard_Speech_5-23-1866.pdf
AND
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/conlaw/senatorhowardspeechonthefourteenthamendment.pdf
H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 - Introduced by Representative Steve King R-IA - Looks like it was introduced and it got nowhere.
https://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr140-112/actions_votes
"In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: "The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil."
So if you are born here by illegal parents you are not subject to the courts and laws that apply here? I’m just trying to understand what that means.
Howard’s speech, as you posted, would seems to declare that ALL citizens born in the United States has always been automatically given citizenship by the occasion of their birth. The excerpt I posted, then, can be understood as a clarification.
Re: King. Yes, the House wouldn’t bring up anything that wouldn’t pass the Senate and Obama’s veto.
You get deported.....
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.