Quote From Hat In Ring 8-24-2015
To those that don't fully understand this mumbo gumbo of this copy/pasted article the article explains birthright citizenship and how it became to be.
Simply put, the democrats didn't want the
republicans to make citizens out of blacks and when the republicans wanted to pass a law making blacks citizens with full rights of citizens the democrats rejected it and the republicans were afraid that the democrat controlled supreme court would rule the law unconstitutional. The republicans then went forward to pass a constitutional amendment instead and this effort did succeed. The creation of the 14th amendment was done.
The creators of the 14th amendment wording was well crafted and precise so it's hard to understand unless you drill down and really study it. The creators stated before the 14 amendment was ratified by the states that it did not contain wording giving birthright citizenship to children of foreign born aliens. Futhermore in 1873 the then supreme court ruled the 14th amendment did not give birthright citizenship to children of foreign born aliens in the U.S.. Again in 1884 the supreme court ruled that no foreign citizen can become a United States citizen without the consent of the nation.
In 1898 the supreme court that was occupied by progressive liberal democrats ruled a child of foreign born alien parents was a citizen due to his birth in the U.S.. These progressive democrat supreme court judges did not cite the U.S. Constitution or U.S. Case law to install their ruling. These progressive democrats used a British law from 1609 to make their ruling and change the meaning of the 14th amendment. The U.S. congress never did anything to punish these progressive liberal democrat judges and to this day no other supreme court has overturned the ruling. The ruling giving children of foreign born parents U.S. Citizenship is absolutely Bull Shit and bad behavior. The Supreme Court justices are only suppose to use the U.S. Constitution and maybe past U.S. Case law to determine if a law or amendment is constitutional or explain the meaning of a law or amendment. Using a foreign law and a foreign law from 1609 should be criminal and they should have been punished by any means necessary.
Also Read: The Real Meaning Of The Line: "Subject To The Jurisdiction" In The 14th amendment
The Creation of the Fourteenth Amendment
This article deals with how birthright citizenship came to be
The Constitution “was widely read in the antebellum era as making national citizenship derivative of state citizenship, except in cases involving the naturalization of immigrants and the regulation of federal territories.”30 The Fourteenth Amendment nationalized the definition of citizenship, rather than relying on the states, and it made state citizenship automatic upon residence in that state. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons “born or naturalized” in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens of both the state in which they reside and the United States. Ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to overturn the Dred Scott ruling and protect former slaves, who were not recognized as citizens by Southern states even after the Civil War and emancipation.
At first, the Reconstruction Congress had tried to create a statutory definition of citizenship under the Civil Rights Act of 1866: “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.” President Andrew Johnson, who opposed the Radical Republicans in Congress, vetoed the measure:
Congress overrode Johnson’s veto of the bill. But fearing that the Supreme Court might strike down such a law as unconstitutional, Congress moved forward on a proposed Fourteenth Amendment that would accomplish the same goal. Rep. John Bingham, the principal author of the Fourteenth Amendment, had not included a definition of citizenship in his original language. But, according to historian Rebecca Zeitlow, “The Citizenship Clause was added during the debate over the [proposed amendment] in order to reinforce the Citizenship Clause of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and to ensure that Dred Scott was overruled.”
However, in a series of revisions in the Senate the Citizenship Clause was altered and its intention became unclear. Some legislators believed that the amendment’s new phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” meant exactly the same thing as the language in the Civil Rights Act: “not subject to any foreign power.” Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Reverdy Johnson of Maryland were very explicit on this issue. Said Trumbull: “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else; that is what it means.” Added Senator Johnson: “Now, all that this amendment provides is that all persons born within 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.”
When he introduced the proposed Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan explained its intent:
Senator Willard Saulsbury of Delaware stated flatly that the Citizenship Clause’s object was “simply to declare that Negroes shall be citizens of the United States.” But Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked whether the amendment would also make citizens of the children of Chinese immigrants in California or a “Gypsy born in Pennsylvania.” Senator John Conness of California–himself an Irish immigrant–spoke in favor of that proposition, arguing that his state had already allowed Chinese immigrants to become citizens and their numbers were quite small. Cowan was not persuaded. He added that a foreigner “has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.”
The one consistent theme in the legislative debate was to ensure that “Indians not taxed” were ineligible for citizenship under the new language of the Fourteenth Amendment. Related to that point, several senators remarked that U.S. jurisdiction over the birthright citizens would have to be complete and total–unlike that over Indian tribes. Another senator pointed out that children of diplomats similarly were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.40 Beyond its application to Indians, the legislative history regarding the intent of the Citizenship Clause was somewhat mixed, leaving the Supreme Court to determine its construction.
Citizenship in the Courts
In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), the Supreme Court first interpreted the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It ruled that “[t]he 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.” And in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Court held that the Citizenship Clause did not apply to Indians who were born in the United States as part of a tribe, even if they subsequently left the tribe. Such Native Americans could only become naturalized citizens, through a treaty or legislation. Said the Court: “no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” The Court emphasized the meaning of the phrase “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.”
But in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court applied British common law (or customary law) to interpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that a “natural born citizen,” as mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, must be interpreted according to the standards set forth in an English ruling known as Calvin’s Case (1608). Under feudal law, children of friendly aliens owed allegiance to the sovereign in whose dominion they were born. This principle is known as jus solis (law of soil), in which citizenship attaches through the land in which one is born. The complementary principle of jus sanguinis (law of blood) extends citizenship through the nationality of a child’s parents.
Although these principles were nowhere mentioned in the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to Chinese immigrants, had acquired birthright citizenship. The Court acknowledged that Ark’s parents were still subjects of the Chinese Emperor, and that Ark was a laborer otherwise ineligible for U.S. citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Act. However, Ark’s parents had established a permanent domicile and legal residence in San Francisco, where he was born.
Moreover, the Court held that the only purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limiting phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was to acknowledge the two exceptions to birthright citizenship recognized under common law. These were children born to foreign ambassadors or occupying enemies. Indians, said the Court, occupied a special category not recognized by common law.
This article deals with how birthright citizenship came to be
The Constitution “was widely read in the antebellum era as making national citizenship derivative of state citizenship, except in cases involving the naturalization of immigrants and the regulation of federal territories.”30 The Fourteenth Amendment nationalized the definition of citizenship, rather than relying on the states, and it made state citizenship automatic upon residence in that state. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons “born or naturalized” in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens of both the state in which they reside and the United States. Ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to overturn the Dred Scott ruling and protect former slaves, who were not recognized as citizens by Southern states even after the Civil War and emancipation.
At first, the Reconstruction Congress had tried to create a statutory definition of citizenship under the Civil Rights Act of 1866: “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.” President Andrew Johnson, who opposed the Radical Republicans in Congress, vetoed the measure:
By the first section of the bill 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. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific states, Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is, by the bill, made a citizen of the United States.
Congress overrode Johnson’s veto of the bill. But fearing that the Supreme Court might strike down such a law as unconstitutional, Congress moved forward on a proposed Fourteenth Amendment that would accomplish the same goal. Rep. John Bingham, the principal author of the Fourteenth Amendment, had not included a definition of citizenship in his original language. But, according to historian Rebecca Zeitlow, “The Citizenship Clause was added during the debate over the [proposed amendment] in order to reinforce the Citizenship Clause of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and to ensure that Dred Scott was overruled.”
However, in a series of revisions in the Senate the Citizenship Clause was altered and its intention became unclear. Some legislators believed that the amendment’s new phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” meant exactly the same thing as the language in the Civil Rights Act: “not subject to any foreign power.” Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Reverdy Johnson of Maryland were very explicit on this issue. Said Trumbull: “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else; that is what it means.” Added Senator Johnson: “Now, all that this amendment provides is that all persons born within 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.”
When he introduced the proposed Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan explained its intent:
“ 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 grea t 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.”
Senator Willard Saulsbury of Delaware stated flatly that the Citizenship Clause’s object was “simply to declare that Negroes shall be citizens of the United States.” But Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked whether the amendment would also make citizens of the children of Chinese immigrants in California or a “Gypsy born in Pennsylvania.” Senator John Conness of California–himself an Irish immigrant–spoke in favor of that proposition, arguing that his state had already allowed Chinese immigrants to become citizens and their numbers were quite small. Cowan was not persuaded. He added that a foreigner “has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.”
The one consistent theme in the legislative debate was to ensure that “Indians not taxed” were ineligible for citizenship under the new language of the Fourteenth Amendment. Related to that point, several senators remarked that U.S. jurisdiction over the birthright citizens would have to be complete and total–unlike that over Indian tribes. Another senator pointed out that children of diplomats similarly were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.40 Beyond its application to Indians, the legislative history regarding the intent of the Citizenship Clause was somewhat mixed, leaving the Supreme Court to determine its construction.
Citizenship in the Courts
In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), the Supreme Court first interpreted the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It ruled that “[t]he 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.” And in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Court held that the Citizenship Clause did not apply to Indians who were born in the United States as part of a tribe, even if they subsequently left the tribe. Such Native Americans could only become naturalized citizens, through a treaty or legislation. Said the Court: “no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” The Court emphasized the meaning of the phrase “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.”
But in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court applied British common law (or customary law) to interpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that a “natural born citizen,” as mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, must be interpreted according to the standards set forth in an English ruling known as Calvin’s Case (1608). Under feudal law, children of friendly aliens owed allegiance to the sovereign in whose dominion they were born. This principle is known as jus solis (law of soil), in which citizenship attaches through the land in which one is born. The complementary principle of jus sanguinis (law of blood) extends citizenship through the nationality of a child’s parents.
Although these principles were nowhere mentioned in the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to Chinese immigrants, had acquired birthright citizenship. The Court acknowledged that Ark’s parents were still subjects of the Chinese Emperor, and that Ark was a laborer otherwise ineligible for U.S. citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Act. However, Ark’s parents had established a permanent domicile and legal residence in San Francisco, where he was born.
Moreover, the Court held that the only purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limiting phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was to acknowledge the two exceptions to birthright citizenship recognized under common law. These were children born to foreign ambassadors or occupying enemies. Indians, said the Court, occupied a special category not recognized by common law.
Tea Party Main Street Home
No comments:
Post a Comment