On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 2:42:50 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:12 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 5:22:13 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

by John C. Eastman, Ph.D

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm18.cfm

It is today routinely believed that under the CitiÂ*zenship Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain
U.S. citizenÂ*ship. However strong this commonly believed interÂ*pretation
might appear, it is incompatible not only with the text of the
Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debate surrounding
its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding.

It is time for Congress to reassert its plenary authority and make
clear, by resolution, its view that the €œsubject to the jurisdiction€�
phrase of the CitizenÂ*ship Clause has meaning of fundamental importance
to the naturalization policy of the nation.

The Original Understanding of the Citizenship Clause

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth AmendÂ*ment provides that €œAll
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.€�[1] As manifest by the conÂ*junctive €œand,€� the
clause mandates citizenship to those who meet both of the constitutional
prerequiÂ*sites: (1) birth (or naturalization) in the United States and
(2) being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The widely held, though erroneous, view today is that any person
entering the territory of the United States€”even for a short visit; even
illegally€”is considered to have subjected himself to the jurisÂ*diction
of the United States, which is to say, subÂ*jected himself to the laws of
the United States. Surely one who is actually born in the United States
is therefore €œsubject to the jurisdiction€� of the United States and
entitled to full citizenship as a result, or so the common reasoning goes.

Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it
renders the entire €œsubject to the jurisdiction€� clause redundant.
Anyone who is €œborn€� in the United States is, under this
interpreÂ*tation, necessarily €œsubject to the jurisdiction€� of the United
States. Yet it is a well-established docÂ*trine of legal interpretation
that legal texts, includÂ*ing the Constitution, are not to be interpreted
to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to
absurd results.[2]

This is manifestly bull****.

It's not.

There is no redundancy.

That's right. So, subject to the jurisdiction does *not* mean merely
subject to the laws. It means something more.

This section [citizenship clause] 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. And the words relate to the time of
birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in
the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards
except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings
under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a
treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

Elk v Wilkins
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...2/94/case.html

That's about citizenship. It has nothing to do with non-citizens who are subject to US jurisdiction. In other words, it's about a different subject altogether.


Subject to the jurisdiction, in the sense intended in the citizenship
clause, means owing full allegiance. Or put another way, as it was in
the Civil Rights Act of 1866:

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/1866.cra.htm


The children of *all* aliens born in the U.S. are subject to the power
of their parents' country of citizenship. Their allegiance is that of
their parents.

No they're not. You must be pulling this from from ancient British laws -- or pulling it from somewhere else. It has nothing to do with the law in the US.

They may claim citizenship in their parents' country, and, depending on the country, they probably can claim it. But they have citizenship in the US, and that has been the default situation in the US since the founding.


"Subject to the jurisdiction of" delineates between those who are, for example, foreign diplomats (and their children).

It's more than that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...zenship-john-c

What a complete pile of revisionist bull****. Yoo is right. Eastman, in this NR piece, reaches for a notorious source of embarrassment for US jurisprudence: the Slaughterhouse cases and "negro" citizenship.

Forget it. Birthright citizenship is the law of the land. If you want to change it, you'll need a constitutional amendment to do it.

--
Ed Huntress