On 4/16/2017 12:26 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 8:29:11 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 4/14/2017 12:55 PM, wrote:
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 €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.

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

Wrong. *NO* other developed country in the world, except Canada, has
automatic /jus soli/ citizenship, and somehow they figure it out. This
is not the infinite series you imagine.

What? That has nothing to do with what I said.

It has everything to do with it, lying nsf eddie. Your objection is the
same as every pro-anchor-baby liar: that without automatic /jus soli/
citizenship, no one can prove his citizenship. It's a lie.


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?

Citizens, because they were born to citizens.

Citizens of Britain.

Not all of your ancestors immigrated here from Great Britain.




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.

Sorry, Eastman and Howard Sutherland and Edwin Meese are right on this.

You keep *your* day job, nsf eddie - you don't know as much about this
as I do.


Actually, I know the state of the law and the relevant court cases.

**** off. You know some **** you read at some pro-anchor-baby web site.

You make everyone sick with your non-stop pretense to be an expert in
everything. You have *no* expertise in this topic at all, and you
haven't read about it as much as I have, so **** off.

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.

It *is* just Ark. You never went over the court cases. You don't know
them.

Yeah, I have.

Bull****.


There's a good reason that in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, Scalia referred to Hamdi
as "a presumed American citizen."

Right. And the "good reason" is that the Court assumed that he was, and the point was not contested

It ought to have been. Several amicus briefs were specifically about
that threshold question. The court ****ed up, again.

If the right anchor-baby case had got
to the court while Scalia was alive, there is a very good chance that
the presumption of citizenship by birth alone would have been ditched,
as it should be.

Unlikely.

Very likely.



and that has been the default situation in the US since the founding.

That's complete bull****.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. It's *complete* bull****.

http://cf.heritage.org/research/repo...ht-citizenship


That was an amicus brief written for the Hamdi case.

Its reasoning and conclusion are sound and correct.



"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

You go get one, nsf eddie. You're just jerking off.

The law contradicts you at every turn.

So did Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sandford. The law is often wrong.