On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 3:21:57 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 4/14/2017 12:08 PM, wrote:
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 €śsubject to the jurisdiction€ť
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 €śAll
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.€ť[1] As manifest by the conÂ*junctive €śand,€ť 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 €śsubject to the jurisdiction€ť 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 €śsubject to the jurisdiction€ť clause redundant.
Anyone who is €śborn€ť in the United States is, under this
interpreÂ*tation, necessarily €śsubject to the jurisdiction€ť 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.
Exactly.
It has nothing to do with non-citizens who are subject to US jurisdiction.
It does. It's about aliens in the country who are not subject to the
*complete* jurisdiction of the U.S. - that is, they do not owe the U.S.
direct and immediate allegiance - and so *THEREFORE* their U.S.-born
children also do not.
Jesus. So nobody in the US can be a US citizen unless their parents, or *their* parents, etc., were naturalized -- because, otherwise, their parents did not owe the US their direct and immediate allegiance, and they therefore cannot have full US citizenship unless they're naturalized.
Hey, Jon, did you skip your orange juice today? g
If that's the case, figure this one out: My ancestors were never naturalized. They were not immigrants to the US, either, but they were not native Americans (Indians).
So what were they?
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.
Yes, they are.
You must be pulling this from from ancient British laws
No, that's what Justice Gray stupidly did in Wong Kim Ark.
Keep your day job. And lay off of NR. They've gone to pot.
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
*Not* under a correct reading of the citizenship clause.
Good luck with that one. It isn't just Ark. We went over this here between five and ten years ago. I'm not going through the court cases again. You're simply wrong; you're buying into one of the opium fantasies of the crackpot right.
and that has been the default situation in the US since the founding.
That's complete bull****.
No, it's not. You're going to bring up Ark and the cases that question "natural-born." We've been there. So have the courts. The default position is, and always has been, birthright citizenship. No alternative conclusion has withstood the test of time and court cases.
"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****.
It's not. Eastman is right, Yoo is wrong.
Keep your day job, Jon. You and Eastman are just jerking off. At least he's getting paid for it. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress