Thread: The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Ameri

http://idexer.com/citizenship.htm

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
February 1, 2005

We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of
children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction
of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But
what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of
giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we
explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the
Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to
grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within
the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they
reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, but what does it mean? Does it mean anyone born
in the United States is automatically an American citizen?
Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to
answer this question, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob
M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope
as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of
the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No.
127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

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 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, 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.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention
of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply
because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts
have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the
jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to
tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the
phrase:

[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.

Trumbull continues, "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 treaties with them, and therefore they
are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make
treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely
within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of
making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that
such persons should be citizens.[2]

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

Mr. HOWARD: 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.[3]

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be
considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen
could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American
citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his
comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the
constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is,
that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some
foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who
have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of
the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a
necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States
there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what
has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United
States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth,
and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact
of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents
who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as
further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits
of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense,
that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder,
or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a
certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons
living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be
subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they
are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until
they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of
the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth
Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers
used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil
rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
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...[6]

Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance
required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of
Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to
become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,
potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore
been a subject or citizen...

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but
that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by
modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely
their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a
mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you
could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in
celebration of taking the American Citizenship Oath. James Madison
defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some
words of wisdom:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an
easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions
necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that
we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part
of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes
into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to
swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth

and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of
citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community
are not the people we are in want of.[7]

What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States
does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be
born within American jurisdiction. It is the allegiance (complete
jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that
determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the
United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to
compel a child's parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the
total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to
make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it
possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what
persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also
succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for
future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or
courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for
which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing
matter.

Footnotes

[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
[2]. Id. at 2893
[3]. Id. at 2895
[4]. Id. at 2893
[5]. Id. at 2897
[6]. Id. at 1291
[7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.

Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its
entirely only. Last updated

Aunt B... this is absolutly excellent. This document is one very excellent way to go after Congress. And while I am not a lawyer, this may make all the anchor babies illegal again. I don't think Congress would go that far.. and they might simply ignore it, but a copy of the post is going to Lou Dobbs and to O'Rielly.

We need to copy this information down, and it need to go to our Congress representitives. All of them. And fast. If you can.. please do it!

I will be back with some critical addresses. Haster is one who needs the copy of this, but there are others and sending a copy to the whole damned congressional body as well as the President may be worth while.

Thank you Aunt B.

Right on SHAW & Thanx AuntB!

The more we can push this information out and into the hands of Congress the more they'll begin to realize that their CONSTITUENTS are a not just a collective group called the "unwashed masses."

Uh Ohhhhhhhhh, shoot, "they" can THINK "we haven't dumbed down the educational system fast enough."

I could not get this post into Lou Dobbs. If you can, please do!! It could be it is to long.. could be me, and may well be me in which case, I won't be able to send it to O'Reilly either. Please.. somebody do so. I am going to try and send this to O'Reilly, and then get addresses. Back in a jiff.

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9

I got one letter into the Judicary Committee. But my posts were not accepted in a good dozen more. But I did get two posts up in MSN Forums, and after I get out of the hospital.. maybe in that third and forth forum in MSN.

Send Aunt B's post to your reps please... send to the leadership people also!
This is the "Leadership" group. My system is apparently not acceptable to anyone and I cannot get one single damned message out. So if anyone can go here and send this post from Aunt B, it wouldbe appreciated. I also cannot get into Lou Dobbs site, or Fox. Here is an address.

http://www.house.gov/house/orgs_pub_hse_ldr_www.shtml

Write your rep here.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

SHAW

I'll certainly do my small part tomorrow. Actually, I think I'm going to be wearing bells around my neck during that time, LOL.

So sorry to hear you're in the hospital. Do get well quickly

Lou Dobbs did not take it, I got a 404 error message when I hit submit.

I am off to try the other places.

I think it may be too long.

I got it to all of my reps, and Tom DeLay....that's a start.

Shaw,

Good luck in the Hospital, hope to hear from you soon.

Darlene

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

the 14th amendment wasn't intended to encompass the world, only to incorporate the slaves that were emancipated ... this amendment is actually 'unconstitutional' because it was not propertly ratified ... it is "pretend legislation"


While reading the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the House, dated June 13, 1967, on page 15641 I see, in the third column begins a discussion (through page 15646) where it explicitly states:

THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I Section 3 and Article V of the U.S. 'Constitution'

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I Section 7.

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by thre-fourths of al the States in the Union. Article V.
...pg 15644 (first column) No one can contend that the Reconstruction Acts were ever upheld as being valid and constitutional.

(second column) ...Congress passed an emergency Act (Act March 27, 1868. 15 Stat. at L. 44)(which) placed the Reconstruction Acts beyond judicial recourse and avoided test of constitutionality.

...pg 15645 (first column- top) Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress and all acts and things unlawfully done thereunder were in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution which required the United States to guarantee every State in the Union a republican form of government. They violated Article I Section 3 and Article V...

(below) From all of the above documented historic facts, it is inescapable that the 14th Amendment never was validly adopted as an article of the Constitution, that it has no legal effect, and it should be declared by the Courts to be unconstitutional, and therefore null, void, and of no effect.

THE CONSTITUTION STRIKES THE 14th AMENDMENT WITH NULLITY...
... pg 15646, (center column) The Constitution make it the sworn duty of the judges to uphold the Constitution which strikes with nullity the 14th Amendment..."The framers of the constitution contemplated the instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature."
"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?"

"If such be the real state of things, that is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."...

Only an aroused public sentiment in favor of preserving the Constitution and our institutions and freedoms under constitutional government, and the future security of our country, will break the political barrier which now prevents judicial consideration of the unconstitutionality of the 14th amendment.



http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-0...on.cgi.26.html