johnwk
12-07-2008, 08:04 PM
.
Please note this thread is not intended to debate whether or not Obama is eligible to be president of the United States, but rather, the thread is to simply establish the particular requirements which establish an acquired United States citizenship as distinguished from those particulars which establish one as being a natural born citizen, the latter of which is a requirement to be president of the United States.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will hear the pending case involving this issue and restate the distinctions between a natural born citizen and a citizenship which is acquired, and do so in such a manner as will be in harmony with the very clear intentions and beliefs under which the involved constitutional provisions were adopted.
The Anchor Baby Myth and natural born citizenship
In relatively recent years it has been alleged that because of the Fourteenth Amendment‘s adoption, every child born on American soil becomes a citizen of the United States even if that child‘s parents are foreign nationals.
But the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, articulates the following concerning citizenship:
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.
And in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884) the court points out with reference to the 14th Amendment:
'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
The important point here is to fully understand that one must not only be born on American soil to be a citizen of the United States, but likewise be subject to the “jurisdiction thereof” to be considered a citizen of the United States upon birth.
And in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the SCOTUS emphatically articulates the clear intentions of the fourteenth with regard to citizenship:
That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
So, according to the Supreme Court the wording of the 14th Amendment was intended to exclude from citizenship children born to Ministers, children born to consuls, and children born to citizens or subjects of foreign States!
The court continues in Elk v. Wilkins:
Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country.
Now why would the SCOTUS repeatedly make statements that the wording in the Fourteenth Amendment which declares 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children born to foreign nationals?
I would say it’s because the court is obliged to abide by the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is to carry out the documented intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted, and, the above statements made by the Court express the very intentions under which the amendment was adopted and were succinctly articulated by Senator Howard who moved the Senate on May 30th, 1866, to take up H.J. Res. 127, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Upon the Senate taking up the motion, Senator Howard states the following:
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.(my emphasis) see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11)
And so, babies born to foreign nationals while on American soil are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, and as such, are not recognized as a “natural born citizen” of the US under the intended meaning of the 14th Amendment. However, such a child may become a “naturalized” citizen by later taking our country’s oath of “allegiance” as stated by the SCOTUS and would then meet the Constitutional requirement of jurisdiction. But such a person could never legally establish themselves as being a “natural born” citizen of the United States!
And what are the constitutional requirements to be president of the United States? Our Constitution declares:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"____ Justice Story
Please note this thread is not intended to debate whether or not Obama is eligible to be president of the United States, but rather, the thread is to simply establish the particular requirements which establish an acquired United States citizenship as distinguished from those particulars which establish one as being a natural born citizen, the latter of which is a requirement to be president of the United States.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will hear the pending case involving this issue and restate the distinctions between a natural born citizen and a citizenship which is acquired, and do so in such a manner as will be in harmony with the very clear intentions and beliefs under which the involved constitutional provisions were adopted.
The Anchor Baby Myth and natural born citizenship
In relatively recent years it has been alleged that because of the Fourteenth Amendment‘s adoption, every child born on American soil becomes a citizen of the United States even if that child‘s parents are foreign nationals.
But the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, articulates the following concerning citizenship:
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.
And in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884) the court points out with reference to the 14th Amendment:
'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
The important point here is to fully understand that one must not only be born on American soil to be a citizen of the United States, but likewise be subject to the “jurisdiction thereof” to be considered a citizen of the United States upon birth.
And in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the SCOTUS emphatically articulates the clear intentions of the fourteenth with regard to citizenship:
That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
So, according to the Supreme Court the wording of the 14th Amendment was intended to exclude from citizenship children born to Ministers, children born to consuls, and children born to citizens or subjects of foreign States!
The court continues in Elk v. Wilkins:
Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country.
Now why would the SCOTUS repeatedly make statements that the wording in the Fourteenth Amendment which declares 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children born to foreign nationals?
I would say it’s because the court is obliged to abide by the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is to carry out the documented intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted, and, the above statements made by the Court express the very intentions under which the amendment was adopted and were succinctly articulated by Senator Howard who moved the Senate on May 30th, 1866, to take up H.J. Res. 127, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Upon the Senate taking up the motion, Senator Howard states the following:
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.(my emphasis) see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11)
And so, babies born to foreign nationals while on American soil are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, and as such, are not recognized as a “natural born citizen” of the US under the intended meaning of the 14th Amendment. However, such a child may become a “naturalized” citizen by later taking our country’s oath of “allegiance” as stated by the SCOTUS and would then meet the Constitutional requirement of jurisdiction. But such a person could never legally establish themselves as being a “natural born” citizen of the United States!
And what are the constitutional requirements to be president of the United States? Our Constitution declares:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"____ Justice Story