Thread: Are Children Born of Illegal Immigrants Citizens?

http://www.therant.us/guest/gioia/09222007.htm

Are Children Born of Illegal Immigrants Citizens?

Dr. Vincent G. Gioia
September 22, 2007

A common misconception is that the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship upon everyone born in the United States whether or not they were born to an illegal alien. Actually, the Constitution itself does not provide citizenship to those born of illegal parents; the Supreme Court only said it did in an 1898 decision known as "U.S. v. Wong [Kim] Ark", and it is politically correct to accept this Supreme Court decision while ignoring others.

The problem is that the court majority in the Wong [Kim] Ark case, as is so often today, "made law" according to their personal beliefs and not what those that wrote the Constitution (or in this case, the 14th Amendment) actually intended at the time it was written. Justice Horace Gray, who wrote the majority decision in the Wong [Kim] Ark case, reveals exactly what the majority was up to by avoiding discussion about the intention of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, Senators Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull.

It is clear the court majority in this case recognized the only reasonable way to come to the conclusion they wanted was to ignore the recorded legislative history left behind by the writers of the amendment. Justice Gray acknowledged this when he wrote: "Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and (sic)[but] the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words." (Emphasis added)

Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed with this attempt by the Wong [Kim] Ark majority to rewrite the Constitution: "A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge's refusal to consider legislative intent." (Emphasis added)

Justice Gray and the court majority refused to consider both the original intent and legislative history behind the words because they knew it would be fatal to their pre-determined intent of reversing what Congress had inserted into the US Constitution by the fourteenth amendment so they avoided what senators Howard and Trumbull wrote and said.

Why did Justice Gray avoid the legislative history and the original intent of those writing the 14th amendment?

Well the first major hurdle Senator Howard presented to the court majority in this case is that he specifically declared the clause to be "virtue of natural law and national law" which only recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power. The Senator also stated when he introduced the amendment: "The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons 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." (Emphasis added). It seems clear that the amendment only applies to American citizens (natural law), regardless of their race - which is exactly what was intended.

The court majority had an even bigger problem to impose their will on American citizens because Senator Howard also said in May, 1868 that the "Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country." *

Senator Trumbull, the co-author, additionally presents a problem for the court majority by declaring: "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.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Sen. Howard followed that up by stating 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."

Illegal aliens and visitors do not enjoy the same quality of jurisdiction as a citizen of the United States. Can an alien be tried for Treason against the United States? Senator Howard clearly intended that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" does not apply to anyone other than American citizens.

The writer, John A. Bingham, of the 14th amendment's first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as "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..."

Ironically, the Supreme Court had already decided the meaning of the 14th amendment's citizenship clause before the Wong [Kim] Ark case, and unlike the majority in the Wong [Kim] Ark court, did consider the intent and meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

NO! They are not citizens, and I am wondering how many in our government are not citizens due to parents coming to America illegally. Good jobs going to illegals.

While I support much of his argument you have to wonder about an article which repeatedly gets the name of the person and the case wrong. The person is Wong Kim Ark the case is US vs Wong Kim Ark.

The first thing that an illegal alien would do if they were living under the jurisdiction of the United States is turn themselves into Immigration and the Border Patrol. "Help I seem to have entered by accident" or "Help I seem to have overstayed my visa" please help me and decide whether or not I can stay here. Only a child born after the parent had turned themself in but before the decision would qualify. Other wise the person involved would be here in violation, contempt and defiance of the jurisdiction of the United States.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has already stated that Mexican illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of Mexico and not the USA, yet the traitors running our country are still giving US citizenship to Mexican anchor babies. Now there is a case Judicial Watch should take to the Supreme Court.

Congress has the power to define what the phase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. But have they done that? Not to my knowledge. But if they did then the Supreme Court would have to abide by that as long as it didn't conflict with some other constitutional right. Thus Congress could pass a law saying anyone in the country illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U S. Thus if someone is born in the U S to illegal alien parents they would not be automatic citizens. No more anchor babies. Obviously, if someone is in the country illegally they would still be subject to the criminal laws, immigration laws, etc. But they wouldn't be subject to the treason laws, extradition or the draft if there was one, etc.

Originally Posted by Justthatguy

Congress has the power to define what the phase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.

That is correct, Congress has done this a couple of times, for example when they passed a law saying all American Indians are also US Citizens. Previously only the American Indians unaffiliated with a tribal nation (reservation) were US citizens.

E-verify up for a fight in February and March. We must keep building our numbers, fighting for our country. 14th Amendment must be addressed, too.

Go ALIPACERS

Why did Justice Gray avoid the legislative history and the original intent of those writing the 14th amendment?

Could this be the answer? Hold onto your seats!

Wrotnowski Vs Obama
To Get Full SCOTUS Conf
12-9-8

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... ferred-to-
full-court-by-justice-scalia-distributed-for-conference-on
-dec-12-supplemental-brief-to-be-submitted-tomorrow

WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION REFERRED TO FULL COURT BY JUSTICE SCALIA - DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE ON DEC 12 - SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO BE SUBMITTED TOMORROW

Posted in http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... ategorized
Uncategorized on December 8, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm

Cort Wrotnowski's emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm
WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio's case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

Tomorrow, Dec. 9 - Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray - who wrote the seminal opinion in
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=649
United States v. Wong Kim Arc - was appointed by Chester Arthur.

The Wong Kim Arc case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.

The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur's father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester's birth. In fact, http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... akthrough-
proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/william-arthur-naturalization
William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray's decision in Wong Kim Arc seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur's birth.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Arc was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it's not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... akthrough-
proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth
It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in
http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/ ... kin=BEagle
the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield's running mate he lied many times about hisfather's emigration record, his parents' life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father's age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.

Every other President (who didn't become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... t&post=175
reported on Friday Dec. 5.

It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur's eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray's opinion and vote in Wong Kim Arc.

It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray's SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur's POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... istorical-
breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth

All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Arc must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.

Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Cort Wrotnowski

LINK:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Born to a United States Citizen in the United States, outside of the United States people must be naturalization citizens. Naturalization even if born to two US Citizens. Apply this to everyone, judges, government officials, mayors, governor, Congress, etc.... Keep us sound and safe; deport all who are here illegal.