on the 14th amendment

I am going to copy an article here as a start to the facts. then I will delve into the language and stuff.

From the website the daily signal, authored by hans von spakovsky. titled birthright citizenship: a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.

  • What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

    Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

    The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

    Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

    But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

    The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

    This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

    Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

    As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

    In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

    American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

    Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

    Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

    The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

    It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

    Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

    We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.

    Originally published by Fox News in 2011

  • Now to read the actual text (not the text they show you in the school books) –
  • 1. All 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let’s break it down. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does this mean according to the original framers? the main word to concentrate on is under the JURISDICTION.  Those are the key words. you see to be under the jurisdiction in this case means that you have no allegiance to a foreign land. If you come in to our country and have not declared your citizenship then you are not under our jurisdiction.

The principal authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment — Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio — elucidated the meaning of jurisdiction in those provisions. The point was to stress “complete” jurisdiction, as in “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

When the original framer of this amendment created it, he said it was not for any foreigner, thus the word jurisdiction.(paraphrased) this amendment was originally created to give slaves official citizenship. It was never meant to create what the recent courts have done. Since the recent courts have gone well past the original framers intentions, a new court can over turn.

Now for a little sideways look at the rest of section 1. (going out on a limb in logic here).

According to this…. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. a foreigner is not entitled to any of the protections of our laws or the protection of life, liberty and happiness. because as you see we have that pesky phrase again.  Or do we? well it might be interpreted like that, but the qualifier ,within it’s, so that means? in the country or territory? I can leave that one up to the lawyers. So you see it is all in the words and their meaning at the time as explained by the people that wrote them.

I am including a link to another article that helps understanding –

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-does-not-mandate/?fbclid=IwAR3etblp2h688lduH34ZbelPVdtgH4mv9G_mPER44hZIsEChESu627o0rqs

 

 

Leave a Reply