 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RogerRabbit
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 748
Location: Oregon
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:53 pm Post subject: The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Ameri |
 |
|
http://idexer.com/citizenship.htm
| Quote: | 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. |
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In 1972 my first child was born while I was stationed in Germany. She was born at the Army hospital in Fuerth, Germany, just outside Nurnberg. She received a German Birth Certificate but also received a "REPORT OF US CITIZEN BORN ABROAD."
She is a US Citizen, even though born in a foreign land. Without knowing all the legal technicalities, it is my understanding she could claim German citizenship if she had wanted to, but I'm not positive about that. She is in no way German and probably wouldn't be accepted as a German if she had claimed it, not knowing the language or history as they teach it. Other than her birth certificate being written in German, neither she nor her mother or me have ever received anything from the German government.
It is also my understanding that her being born on German soil wouldn't automatically qualify either me or her mother to remain there at will.
My point is that merely being born on the soil of a foreign land doesn't automatically make one a citizen of that land, unless you are in the US illegally, it appears.
_________________
Clark County Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RogerRabbit
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 748
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To help confuse things
My father, as his father were born in US (Buffalo NY 1859 & 1891). They moved to Canada in 1894 where I was born in 1932. I had automatically, dual citizenship but had to actually choose (in writing) before my 18th birthday. (naturally I chose the right way). This is known as derivitive citizenship.
Now my younger brother was born in June 1943 but he could only claim to be one of them (Canadian) and had to be naturalized after the five year wait but did not have to have any special papers to be a resident (or enlist in USN. In his case the law was changed in January 1943 where the ciizen parent (our father - mother was Canadian) had to reside in US at least 16 years (1891 -1894 = 3)
As far as German law goes, I am not sure. My Granddaugter was also born in Germany in a hospital on a US military base and as near as we can determine she does not qualify for dual citizenship (US/German)
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | In 1972 my first child was born while I was stationed in Germany. She was born at the Army hospital in Fuerth, Germany, just outside Nurnberg. She received a German Birth Certificate but also received a "REPORT OF US CITIZEN BORN ABROAD."
She is a US Citizen, even though born in a foreign land. Without knowing all the legal technicalities, it is my understanding she could claim German citizenship if she had wanted to, but I'm not positive about that. She is in no way German and probably wouldn't be accepted as a German if she had claimed it, not knowing the language or history as they teach it. Other than her birth certificate being written in German, neither she nor her mother or me have ever received anything from the German government.
It is also my understanding that her being born on German soil wouldn't automatically qualify either me or her mother to remain there at will.
My point is that merely being born on the soil of a foreign land doesn't automatically make one a citizen of that land, unless you are in the US illegally, it appears. |
Your daughter can get her German Citizenship and have a dual citizenship if she wanted to. Heck, she can probably even collect a pension check without even working like the rest of Europe does. 
Even though I was born here in America and both my parents are Naturalized Citizens, I can get my Italian Citizenship if I wanted to because both of my parents were born in Sicily. With Europe's aging population, I think they will take anybody they can since their birth rate is a little over 1%. Currently, all they are getting is Muslim Immigrants so a Christian Immigrant could be considered a minority.
Then again, who would want to become a citizen of Eurabia.
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unfortunately it is a 'loophole' that many females use to get a quick stay here pass. No need to wait the 3-5 years (whatever it is now) for your green card to turn into citizenship...just have a baby here and you'll never have to leave. I have personally seen many unsuspecting young military men used like this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
