Posted on 01/17/2016 3:30:54 PM PST by Walt Griffith
I briefed it at A Simple-Minded Reading of the Constitution on the Subject of Citizenship: Post 64
Conveniently, these so called experts lean on British Common law for their expertise and totally ignore Vattel’s Law of nations which is documented as having great importance to the Framers. The Declaration of independence uses Vattel’s wording so why is Vattel completely ignored in those who wish to shout BRITISH COMMON LAW. Do you think that the Framers, just finished with throwing out the KING and his SUBJECTS would start a new country mimicking British law? I do not! British “citizens”were SUBJECT TO THE KING. Vattel’s Law of Nations defines Natural Born Citizens as born of TWO parents BOTH Citizens of the country and Born on the soil of the country. America did not have far flung colonies throughout the world as the British EMPIRE did. The brand new United States of America had its own definition of natural born citizen as being one born with NO OTHER ALLEGIANCE.
I'm sorry, I don't know where to find the questions. I didn't pose any question but asking for a cite. I presume there is a list of questions in this thread, but I'm too lazy to go hunt for them.
This thread should probably be pulled.
thank you.
That is the key question. And the misguided justices who decided United States v. Wong Kim Ark in his favor seem to have ignored the following clarifications of the ”and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording in the 14th Amendment (14A). This is evidenced by the clarifications of that phrase in the congressional record by the lawmakers who proposed 14A to the states for ratification, these clarifications below.
Regardless what the United States v. Wong Kim Ark justices and Bill OReilly wants everybody to believe about anchor babies, the federal lawmakers who proposed 14A to the states had clarified that 14A does not automatically make a person born in the states a citizen of the USA.
The first excerpt is Senator Jacob Howards clarification.
"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 [emphases added], 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.” - Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session.
And to clear up any confusion about ”foreigners” and ”aliens” in the excerpt above being used to describe the family members of ambassadors or foreign ministers, the excerpt below is another official perspective on what 14As jurisdiction clause means.
"Of course my opinion is not any better than that of any other member of the Senate; but it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision is, that ” all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means ”subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the Complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by ”subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. [emphases added] Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make . . .” - Senator Lyman Trumbull, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session. (See middle of first column.)
In fact, note that Native Americans were not regarded as citizens, regardless that they were born on US soil, until Congress made the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924.
Indian Citizenship Act
This is enough proof, for me anyway, that people born in the USA to non-citizen parents are not automatically citizens of the USA under the 14th Amendment, regardless if the parents are residents under a states immigration laws.
Insights welcome.
Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens
........................................................
Which was repealed and rewritten in 1795 when the error about natural born was corrected.
True, but it is undeniable that the framers also relied extensively on British Common Law when draftting the Constitution.
They cherry picked the things they preferred and discarded that which they abhorred.
Good argument. In my mind it’s probably more likely that, if anything, the Founders would likely default more toward jus sanguine than soli, as evidenced by the need of the 14th Amendment to grant full citizenship to blacks in light of the Dredd Scott decision.
U.S. citizenship does NOT make a natural born citizen.
Got it. For some reason I assumed you were referring to a list of numbered substantive questions. The questions in post 1 have no bearing on the merits.
You say corrected most would say simply omitted. What the motivation for this omission would be speculation at best.
I do remember that 45 years ago when I was taking the oath as a Commissioned Officer of the U.S. Army I had to swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to the Vattel’s Law of Nation because much later when the internet is invented, people will insist that those two documents are the same.
I also remember all of this nonsense on this forum back in 2008.
I looked at the Naturialization Act of 1790 reference on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
It appears to state that if the father had been “resident” in the US and the mother was a US citizen, that “natural born” was met.
Thoughts?
I do remember that 45 years ago when I was taking the oath as a Commissioned Officer of the U.S. Army I had to swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to the Vattel’s Law of Nation because much later when the internet is invented, people will insist that those two documents are the same.
I also remember all of this nonsense on this forum back in 2008.
Damn the commas, full ignorance ahead. /sarcasm
Oh, and Cruz’s dad appears to have been a resident not because he was a US citizen (he wasn’t) but because of asylum being granted.
Interesting.
Thanks for you thoughtful posts.
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.