Thread: Q: When did the United States Adopt Jus Solis?

Q: When did the United States Adopt Jus Solis?
By P.A. Madison on April 9, 2007
Update III

Answer: The United States as a nation never did adopt the common law principle of jus solis.

Had England’s common law doctrine been adopted in the United States, the right of expatriation on the part of a citizen of the United States could not have been advocated by publicists. If through locality of birth, citizenship was acquired as it was understood in England, the right of expatriation could not have existed; and the fact that it was held to exist, and was exercised by both citizens of the United States and aliens would tend to deny the adoption of the English rule.

Early publicists on the laws of both England and the United States became confused over America’s lack of a written birthright doctrine - so confused they ended up throwing their hands into the air and summarizing the common law of England must be the unwritten convention of the United States. Many bought into the confusion, and this confusion revealed itself in both their their views and judicial findings.

The mistake early commentators made in discussing the American doctrine was they looked in the wrong place to discover it. It was not found at common law, but found in the Declaration of Independence; “all men are born free.â€

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment, as it has been likely, erroneously assumed.

Originally Posted by NoBueno

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment, as it has been likely, erroneously assumed.

You mean as the media has intentionally mis-led the public to believe.

What we have in place now is not birthright citizenship based on the Constitution. Instead it is based on legal precedent based on Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray's opinion of the Wong Kim Ark decision.


In the Wong Kim Ark decision the court decided that an ethnic Chinese who was born to Chinese legal immigrants but who were not citizens and by existing treaty could not become American citizens without a specific act of Congress was himself born a citiizen.


Gray's opnion was that this decision was extended to every other peron if they were born here regardless of the legal status of their parents.

Originally Posted by Richard

What we have in place now is not birthright citizenship based on the Constitution. Instead it is based on legal precedent based on Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray's opinion of the Wong Kim Ark decision.


In the Wong Kim Ark decision the court decided that an ethnic Chinese who was born to Chinese legal immigrants but who were not citizens and by existing treaty could not become American citizens without a specific act of Congress was himself born a citiizen.


Gray's opnion was that this decision was extended to every other peron if they were born here regardless of the legal status of their parents.

The distinction in Wong Kim is the parents were residing "legally" within the United States at the time of birth, but could not become citizens because of the Chinese Exclusionary Act which denied persons of Chinese Ancestory the right to US Citizenship.

Wong Kim nver decided the issue of citizenship to those children born on US Soil in which the parents of said child had entered and were illegally domiciled in the US at the time of birth.

This is why Wong Kim did not set any precident in regards to birthright citizenship to the children born of parents who were in the country illegally at time of birth.

The US Supreme Court should NEVER have decreed that ANY American-born child of FOREIGNERS--even LEGAL residents--is an American citizen, PERIOD!