Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they are black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognize the principle that I assert. –John A. Bingham (14th amendment co-author, January 20, 1862)

[T]his 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.

*The lowly comma often times forgotten grammatical expression of separation within a sentence,

In this instance making very specific the meaning within the fourteenth amendment that children born to foreigners within the confines of the United States can not be citizens by virtue of their place of birth.

Furthermore, what was this law of the land already Howard speaks of? “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power”

[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.

Moreover, United States Revised Statute 1992 [1886] is completely incompatible with the rule of jus soli: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” How can a foreign citizen of another country, who has not yet renounced his/her allegiance to their own country, not be a subject of their own country of origin?

http://federalistblog.us/2005/12/birthright_citizenship_fable.html

Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law

UPDATE II

There is a misconception floating around that suggests the ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the definite guiding rule of interpretation over the fourteenth amendment’s citizenship clause. Worst, some even go as far to suggest Wong Kim Ark is settled law. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Reading the majorities opinion in Kim Ark, one can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such obscure and irrelevant historical overviews as colonial and foreign law. With two previous established court decisions that substantially covered the same ground regarding the meaning and application of the words found in the fourteenth amendments citizenship clause, leaves one to wonder what is going on here?

Deeper into the decision, justice Horace Gray (writing for the majority) reveals exactly what the majority is up to: They are attempting to avoid discussion over the construction of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for its language found in the Constitution, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull.

It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the fact that the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact 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 the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

Our most precious privilege has been degraded, discounted and desecrated.

American citizenship is not to be taken so lightly.
Loyalty not birth is the most important factor, it was then it should be now.

Speakup on September 8, 2007 at 2:12 PM