BUT DID THE 14TH AMENDMENT EVER REALLY GRANT IT?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jun. 15, 2010) — The sponsor of Arizona’s new immigration law, State Senator Russell Pearce, recently stated that he will “work to see Arizona’s controversial new immigration law mirrored in a third of the country.” Rasmussen reports that 60% of Americans favor the new law which is scheduled to take effect on July 29, 2010, despite numerous lawsuits against it.
He is also now planning to introduce legislation which would revoke automatic citizenship for children of illegals born within the borders of the United States.
Of the new proposal, Pearce stated, ““It is difficult to imagine a more self defeating legal system than one that makes unauthorized entry into the U.S. a criminal offense, and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry.”
Pearce also believes that children of illegal immigrants attending school in the U.S. should have to pay tuition to cover the costs, thereby relieving American taxpayers of the responsibility.
The Fourteenth Amendment followed the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which reads, in part:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 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; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
The section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which deals with the issue of citizenship reads:
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.
An analysis of the citizenship issue addressed by the Fourteenth Amendment states that “Congress’ intent in including the qualifying phrase ”and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas.”
The Fourteenth Amendment also dealt with naturalized citizens who had returned to their home countries and voted in an election there, determining that such a person lost his U.S. citizenship upon so doing.
A history of the Fourteenth Amendment and the reasons for its drafting and ratification can be found here. It was known as the “Reconstruction Amendment” and was written to give citizenship to former slaves and their children who had been born in the United States while in captivity. It does not mention anyone born to parents who had entered the U.S. illegally, as at the time there was “no formal immigration policy.”
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio was the primary author of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was intended to remedy “injustice and oppression.” Before its ratification, Bingham addressed the House of Representatives:
[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…. .
Bingham’s “likely intention” was also to have the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights (which contains ten amendments to the Constitution) apply to all of the states. Some of the debate which took place prior to the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification is as follows:
On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania proposed a similar guarantee:
All laws, state or national, shall operate impartially and equally on all persons without regard to race or color.
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” appears to exclude people born in the United States but whose parents owed allegiance to a foreign country. The Slaughter-House case decision stated that “The first clause of the fourteenth article was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race, and secondly to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and citizenship of the States, and it recognizes the distinction between citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States by those definitions.”
In 1856, ten years before debate began on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Dred Scott Decision had stated that “4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to bestow all of the rights granted by the Bill of Rights to former slaves, regardless of their state of residence.
In the Supreme Court decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney “had conceded to members of the state communities ‘all the personal rights, privileges, and immunities guarantied to citizens of this ‘new Government.’…However, Taney had disregarded the plain meaning of the term ‘the people’ by excluding blacks.“
Arizona’s Pearce is not the only legislator discussing a redefining of the Fourteenth Amendment. A bill was also introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives “that would modify that amendment to restrict birthright citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, or a lawful permanent resident or is on active service in the armed forces. “
Another analysis of the “original intent” of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.”
The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act conferred citizenship to Native Americans who had been born “within the territorial limits of the United States.” The act appears to confirm that Native Americans were considered to have met the requirement of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Amazing…truly amazing. I had to read twice, the paragraph stating an “analysis” making the claim the 14th Admt stated Congress’s intent to include “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was to exclude. Whose analysis? Rothchild’s or the Queen’s? That phrase is not exclusionary…it’s an inclusive clause for “Persons” in the creation of citizenry for the UNITED STATES jurisdictional society as well as to completely destroy state identity and the People’s sovereignty.
There are multiple detrimental actions being initiated with the 14th Amdt., but of all the bs…there are three extremely destructive statements in the 14th Amdt. which utterly violate Constitutional authority.
(1) Section 1. literally removes the People’s state identity and places them into involuntary servitude as defined “Persons” and makes them subjects to the jurisdiction of the United States…as well as additionally taking over the states’ authority to act not only in the best interest of its citizenry…but removed state authority to act in accordance to the will of its citizenry. The United States had control over the laws the States could make and enforce.
(2) This one causes me great concern when Constitutional Scholars and Political Representatives cannot seem to understand the very clearly-written words which state if a “Person” had sworn an oath to the Constitution, that he would not be eligible for any political office. Come on…give us a break…I thought this amendment was to that Constitution. Oh…that’s right…the United States had removed the Constitutional restraints placed upon them by the governed in 1861. Makes sense now. If you had sworn an oath to that Constitution…you could not hold office in the new jurisdictional-controlled United States society.
(3) The 14th Admt. took away the People’s “Pursuit Of Happiness” Right. The new society of “Persons” only has 3 rights…Life, Liberty (liberty to what?) and Property. This little phrase in the “unanimous Declaration” stated the People are endowed with certain unalienable God-given rights, AMONG THESE being Life, Liberty and the Pursuit Of Happiness. The 14th Admt. is the United States granting the “Person” the right to Life, Liberty and Property. And for those yet to become educated on a couple of critical pieces of legislation from 1862 and 1864…”Person” was legislatively defined by Congress to be a corporate entity, and through legislation “construed the Territories and District of Columbia to be States.” Hmmmm…interesting….yes?
This is actually all moot. One extremely important item which is constantly being ignored…”An assumed unenumerated power is un-authoritative, void and of no force.” Every “Act” by the general Gov’t from July 4th, 1861, to this day… is un-authoritative, void and of no force.
The 37th Congressional legislative body adjourned “sine die” on March 28, 1861. Congressional record proves this. There were no elections before a proclaimed convening of a Congressional body to establish the next Congressional legislative body lawful in due process of the Constitution. Instead, when an unlawful in due process Congressional body convened…unenumerated power was assumed by that unlawful in due process Congressional legislative body on July 4th, 1861. And therefore Article I, Section I (the very core of the framework of the Constitution) was in absolute conflict. Resulting in, as his Excellency Abe Lincoln stated at the end of his April 15, 1861 proclamation…”the Independence of the United States, in the 85th.”
The 14th Admt. allows this ceo usurper to sit in the chair in the oval office. Everyone should take notice of one little sentence within the 14th Amendment. Congress has the authority to remove a “Person’s” ineligibility status. And I do believe we’ve witnessed this with the current Congress and this Usurper.
I LIKE THAT ;; THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT”’ act is the color of law ‘ IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW……AND neither is a convening house and senate when thry just SINED DEI//// march 28 1861…..you have been duped by a corporate constitution since july 4th 1861…….. the senate and the house were to be re= elected by the people………not BY THE FIRST EXECUTIVE ORDER of ole abe………treason ….a betrayal to the ORGANIC CONSTITUTION WAS COMMITTED…… this forced re= convene=ing had the strike of 75.000 union soldiers waiting in the rears…read the congressional records.. read the 14 th amendment……you lost your title of a sovereign people to a fiction person ….onto the big U the big S CORPORATION…….AND IN THAT WE ARE UNDER emergency rule..there’s more start reading…
I don’t know what’s wrong with our Government. What else has to happen?
Sneaking across the border is trespassing, not immigration.
And speaking of ‘Mexican Anchor Babies’, who are currently the majority of those enjoying the benefit, just read the Mexican Nationality and Citizenship Laws which distinguishes between the two amongst their own people born in their own country.
They are laughing at the ignorant Gringo’s………
The WKA case was wrongly decided by a Chief Justice ti provide cover and show gratitude to the USURPER, Chet Arthur, that appointed him.
The convoluted language defied the logic of the ‘singular question’ of the case, was little Wong a citizen at birth(?)………. of course not, simply because it was contrary to the Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 that the Arks were subject to……..(Original Text) ……..ARTICLE VI
Citizens of the Untied States visiting or residing in China shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities or exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and, reciprocally, Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the the most favored nation. But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States
Gray hung his hat on two fallacies, 1) That ‘SOIL’ was the ONLY consider in the term, subject to the Jurisdiction, and 2) That ‘Domicile’ was synonymous with ‘permanent residence.
It is time to tear down the deception perpetrated by the WKA case whose legacy is that the ONLY remaining operative function of the ‘born’ clause of the 14th Amendment is to give the benefit of citizenship to the children of foreign nationals whether here legally or not. (Re-READ that last sentence, mull it over, and try to dispute it after reading ALL of Title 8, the Citizenship & Collective Naturalization Codes)
The Immigration and Naturalization Laws ARE NOT UNIFORM as the Congress was mandated to make them and the first step to fixing to PROPERLY define ‘American Jurisdiction to include BOTH the Soil and Allegiance and to PROPERLY define Natural Born Citizen so as to have a STANDARD of Citizenship from which to make Uniform all other Immigration and Naturalization Laws for/of Citizenship consideration.
IMO…….
In addition to Bingham’s comments…
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
“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.”
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
“[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”
Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for foreigner’s (an illegal mother) or aliens (the anchor baby) to be granted U.S. citizenship.
There must be a national understanding of our history if we are to survive the abuses to our Constitution.
I believe that citizenship should be granted only to persons born on U.S. soil to (1) parents who are here legally, and (2) who intend to reside here permanently and become naturalized. Citizenship should be provisional until the age of 18 (or 21?). If the parents and child move back to their home country before their child is 18, the child’s provisional citizenship is lost.
I fail to see the purpose of granting birthright citizenship to anyone who might eventually return to their home country and be raised as citizens there. This would apply to visitors who are here on tourist, work, student, or diplomatic visas. I see no practical differences in these categories.
In fact, I think that it is rather arrogant of us to make someone a citizen against their will.
Since there are no populations on earth left who are not subject to governmental powers aren’t all aliens subjects of a foreign power? Would that not negate the “citizen at birth” for all illegals?
Children born of 2 alien parents in the US can reach US Citizenship 3 ways
1) If their parents naturalize during the child’s minority.
2) If their parents become legal residents, and they choose American citizenship at majority.
3) They immigrate and become Naturalized.
Justice Horace Gray, in Wong Kim Ark, blurred the jurisdictional clause (purposefully, to aid his benefactor Chester Arthur?), but the case had an actually very narrow decision. He compared Wong to the children of slaves who were born of NON NATURALIZEABLE resident aliens (slave parents before the 14th Amendment). Wong’s parents were domiciled, and carrying on business in the US but were subject to the Chinese Exclusionary Acts, and not able to naturalize before Wong was born. The decision said that Wong was a citizen because his parents were RESIDENT DOMICILED aliens, and born in the US, not just because Wong was born in the US.
The wrong reading of WKA by conniving politicians, seeking a power base, has damaged American Sovereignty for 112 years.
In order to be naturalized as a citizen, they must state:
“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……”
That seems to contradict the meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ that is currently used. How can someone be required to give up allegiances to be naturalized, yet retain them when born on this soil?
The CRA1866 is why the Naturalization Oath to this day, requires one to abjure all other allegiances to become a US Citizen. Since a jus soli only baby only has allegiance to the country of his parents citizenship, that baby is qualitatively not a US citizen.
No, the 14th does not grant jus soli only citizenship.
AND The Civil Rights Act of 1866 has never been overturned.
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 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; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”