Thread: Anchor babies AREN'T Citizens!

Everybody born in United States is NOT a citizen! That's why the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was put in the 14th amendment. It was meant to exclude not just children of diplomats and American indians, but children of all foreign nationals.

14th Amendment states: "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."

Here's a part of an interesting discussion about it.


"By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself, came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

From the Federalist Blog:

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance

Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.

Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.

This is like insisting the sun rotates around the earth while ignoring the body of evidence to the contrary.

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

The author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "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."

The opinion of US Attorney General Edward Bates in 1862, citing Judge Paschal's exhaustive work on the Constitution, said: "The Constitution does not make the citizen, it is in fact made by them." In other words, only a US Citizen can make a US Citizen upon birth of their child. It was Paschal's great work which was the basis of Bingham's birthright statement.

In 1830 Congress considered amending naturalization law to entitle citizenship to "all the children of such alien mothers as have become residents, and married citizens of the United States since the year 1802."

Already before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this as the law of the land along with the US Attorney General. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen.

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:

[T]his 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.
And what was this law of the land already Howard speaks of? "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power" are citizens of the United States. So what Howard is making clear here is the simple fact his citizenship clause is no different then the law of the land already which demanded allegiance to the United States by at least the child's father before that child could be considered a U.S. born citizen. This alone makes liberal construction to the contrary impossible.
Advocates for birthright citizenship for aliens either through ignorance, or deception, attempt to pretend "subject to the jurisdiction" means only one thing: location at time of birth. It does not, and never had such a meaning during the time period in question. Simply being on US soil (limits) does not automatically make you a "subject" of US jurisdiction like some pro-alien advocates would like to believe.

When one is said to be subject to some nations jurisdiction, this means they are considered as a citizen of that nation. When an alien visits or sneaks into this country they are only under the jurisdiction of local laws and ordinances, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are not subjects of the nation.

The only recognized means for non-Americans to come under US jurisdiction for purposes of citizenship under the US Constitution is through the process of naturalization, which among other things requires an oath of allegiance to the United States. Sen. Reverdy Johnson said as much when debating the citizenship clause in the Senate: "And I know no mode by which an alien can become a citizen of the United States except under the naturalization laws of the United States."

So than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth:

[T]he 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.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying:

[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
One might wonder why did Jacob Howard use the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" rather than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866? The answer is simple: He feared the States could at any time start taxing Indian's, and therefore, making them eligible for citizenship -- something most in Congress at the time did not desire. Since Indians were not under the direct jurisdiction of the United States (they were under the jurisdiction of their respected tribes) the language of the Fourteenth Amendment would disqualify them. This is why the language of the Citizenship Clause ended up different than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866 and made more restrictive as to who could become a citizen by birth.

Still confused to exactly what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means? Let us then hear what the same Senate said it means several years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, in plainer and more comprehensive language that can easily be understood by anyone today with a above 6th grade education. The following is from Sen. James K. Kelly (OR), 42nd Congress, speaking before a session of the Senate on April 26, 1872:

[Take], for instance, the case that arose in the State of Oregon, and was decided by the district court, to which reference was made the other day. A man was born at Astoria, then known as Fort George, beneath the British flag, and, as a matter of course, being the child of a British subject, and born without the allegiance of the United States, because he was not born within the allegiance of the United States, in order to make him a citizen, he was born within the allegiance of the King of Great Britain at the time, and it was so held by the court, and properly held. We had no right to make the children of British subjects American citizens; no more had they a right to make the children of American parents subjects of Great Britain.
...[and] in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the the allegiance of the United States.

Here Sen. Kelly lays out exactly what our national law was on the subject of citizenship by birth and clearly removes all doubt to exactly what the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause means.

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review -- and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1866. Remember this civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US that would in return instantly nullify their recent enacted civil rights law? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean...and for which national law was based upon.

Another question arises for pro-alien birthright citizenship advocates: national law having always required direct allegiance to the United States by a child's parents before that child could be declared an American citizen -- why would a Congress who clearly acknowledged this "law of the land" want to change it and not one soul raised one voice of concern or protest to such a drastic reversal of national law?

The answer should be obvious by now: the Fourteenth Amendment did not change national law of birthright citizenship to aliens or foreigners, just as Sen. Howard confirmed.

It’s also important to understand the majority decided that Ark’s parents were domiciled in the State of California at the time of his birth. The majority considered the fact his parent’s were business owners, not visitors or aliens residing in the State contrary to any law. So this fact makes using this ruling to support automatic citizenship to illegal aliens a real stretch of the imagination.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to a split US Supreme Court ruling in 1982 to declare they had never confirmed the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction." It is also interesting to note there is no record indicating any change to national law regarding citizenship by birth following the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Asian children (and other aliens) continued to be treated as aliens upon birth till their parents became naturalized or they returned to their country of origin. "


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794908/posts

Thank you for this information. We needed to know more about this huge problem.

Bttt