Discussion:
On the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
Add Reply
Daily Beaner
2020-11-15 22:28:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Lino Graglia of the University of Texas Law School had a law
review article on it a few years back:
The 1866 Act begins with a statement from which the Citizenship
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is derived: “[A]ll 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 . . .” The phrase “and not subject to any
foreign power” seems clearly to exclude children of resident
aliens, legal as well as illegal. The Fourteenth Amendment
Citizenship Clause substituted the phrase “and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof,” but there is no indication of intent to
change the original meaning.

In the 39th Congress, which enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act
and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, the question arose of how
to avoid granting birthright citizenship to members of Indian
tribes living on reservations. The issue was whether an explicit
exclusion of Indians should be written into the Citizenship
Clause as it was in the above-quoted first sentence of the 1866
Act. It was decided that this was not necessary, because,
although Indians were at least partly subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, they owed allegiance to their
tribes, not to the United States.

COMMENTS
Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio
were the principal authors of the citizenship clauses in both
the 1866 Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull
stated that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, which means “[n]ot
owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Howard agreed that
“jurisdiction” meant a full and complete jurisdiction, the same
“in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United
States now.” Children born to Indian parents with tribal
allegiances were therefore necessarily excluded from birthright
citizenship, and explicit exclusion was unnecessary. This
reasoning would seem also to exclude birthright citizenship for
the children of legal resident aliens and, a fortiori, of
illegal aliens. It appears, therefore, that the Constitution,
far from clearly compelling the grant of birthright citizenship
to children of illegal aliens, is better understood as denying
the grant.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/14th-amendment-and-
birthright-citizenship-rich-lowry/
 
Rudy Canoza
2020-11-16 02:29:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daily Beaner
Lino Graglia of the University of Texas Law School had a law
The 1866 Act begins with a statement from which the Citizenship
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is derived: “[A]ll 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 . . .” The phrase “and not subject to any
foreign power” seems clearly to exclude children of resident
aliens, legal as well as illegal. The Fourteenth Amendment
Citizenship Clause substituted the phrase “and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof,” but there is no indication of intent to
change the original meaning.
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that "subject to
the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete* jurisdiction, including
owing allegiance to the country, which an alien never does. That complete
jurisdiction includes a political component, beyond mere legal
jurisdiction. Any foreign tourist visiting here naturally is subject to
our legal jurisdiction, but *not* our political jurisdiction. He cannot be
called for jury service and cannot be drafted into our military. He owes
no allegiance to the country and thus is not subject to the *complete*
jurisdiction of the United States.

This was acknowledged in Slaughterhouse Cases both by the majority and by
the dissent, and was acknowledged in Elk v. Wilkins expressly by the author
of the majority opinion, Horace Gray. Gray completely lost his mind 14
years later and through out more than 100 years of American citizenship
law, reverting us to British common law subjecthood. Gray got it wrong.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_2/tsc_22_2_buchanan.shtml
Post by Daily Beaner
In the 39th Congress, which enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act
and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, the question arose of how
to avoid granting birthright citizenship to members of Indian
tribes living on reservations. The issue was whether an explicit
exclusion of Indians should be written into the Citizenship
Clause as it was in the above-quoted first sentence of the 1866
Act. It was decided that this was not necessary, because,
although Indians were at least partly subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, they owed allegiance to their
tribes, not to the United States.
COMMENTS
Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio
were the principal authors of the citizenship clauses in both
the 1866 Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull
stated that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, which means “[n]ot
owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Howard agreed that
“jurisdiction” meant a full and complete jurisdiction, the same
“in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United
States now.” Children born to Indian parents with tribal
allegiances were therefore necessarily excluded from birthright
citizenship, and explicit exclusion was unnecessary. This
reasoning would seem also to exclude birthright citizenship for
the children of legal resident aliens and, a fortiori, of
illegal aliens. It appears, therefore, that the Constitution,
far from clearly compelling the grant of birthright citizenship
to children of illegal aliens, is better understood as denying
the grant.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/14th-amendment-and-
birthright-citizenship-rich-lowry/
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-11-16 03:33:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 11/15/2020 6:29 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that "subject
to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete* jurisdiction,
including owing allegiance to the country, which an alien never does.
Lyman Trumbull:

"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am
afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old
Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."
Rudy Canoza
2020-11-16 04:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that "subject
to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete* jurisdiction,
including owing allegiance to the country, which an alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am
afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old
Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by
'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
else. That is what it means.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull
Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866


This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I
regard as the law of the land already, that 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.

Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause


The senators who voted to approve the 14th amendment understood, and
*said*, that children born to aliens in the United States were not born
subject to the jurisdiction — the *complete*, not merely "legal,"
jurisdiction — of the United States, and thus were not citizens. The
parents of those children did not owe allegiance to the United States, and
therefore the children did not as well, and did not qualify for citizenship
under the 14th amendment.

Gray got it wrong. He got it horrifically wrong, ignoring more than 100
years of American citizenship law, including what was in the Constitution
prior to the 14th amendment.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_2/tsc_22_2_buchanan.shtml

Read it. You said a long time ago that you did, and I know you didn't.
Read it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-11-16 04:21:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that
"subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete*
jurisdiction, including owing allegiance to the country, which an
alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I
am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of
good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not
citizens."
   [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
   subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
   'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by
   'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
   else. That is what it means.
   Sen. Lyman Trumbull
   Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted above. How do
you explain that?
   This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I
   regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
   Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause
The senators who voted to approve the 14th amendment understood, and
*said*, that children born to aliens in the United States were not born
subject to the jurisdiction — the *complete*, not merely "legal,"
jurisdiction — of the United States, and thus were not citizens.  The
parents of those children did not owe allegiance to the United States,
and therefore the children did not as well, and did not qualify for
citizenship under the 14th amendment.
Gray got it wrong.  He got it horrifically wrong, ignoring more than 100
years of American citizenship law, including what was in the
Constitution prior to the 14th amendment.
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_2/tsc_22_2_buchanan.shtml
Read it.  You said a long time ago that you did, and I know you didn't.
Read it.
Rudy Canoza
2020-11-16 04:37:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that "subject
to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete* jurisdiction,
including owing allegiance to the country, which an alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am
afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old
Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."
    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
    'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by
    'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
    else. That is what it means.
    Sen. Lyman Trumbull
    Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted above. How do you
explain that?
What "German parents" was Trumbull talking about? Were they naturalized?
Do you have any clue? No.

How do you explain what Trumbull said during the judiciary committee debate?

How do you explain that Jacob Howard didn't say anything like what you quoted?

How do you explain that Gray, in Elk v. Wilkins, *expressly* confirmed what
the senators said?

The U.S.-born children of aliens should not be considered citizens, based
on the proper understanding of "subject to the jurisdiction."
    This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I
    regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
    Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause
The senators who voted to approve the 14th amendment understood, and
*said*, that children born to aliens in the United States were not born
subject to the jurisdiction — the *complete*, not merely "legal,"
jurisdiction — of the United States, and thus were not citizens.  The
parents of those children did not owe allegiance to the United States,
and therefore the children did not as well, and did not qualify for
citizenship under the 14th amendment.
Gray got it wrong.  He got it horrifically wrong, ignoring more than 100
years of American citizenship law, including what was in the Constitution
prior to the 14th amendment.
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_2/tsc_22_2_buchanan.shtml
You still haven't read this, despite your lie some months ago that you had.
Read it.  You said a long time ago that you did, and I know you didn't.
Read it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-11-16 05:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that
"subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete*
jurisdiction, including owing allegiance to the country, which an
alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?
I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of
good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not
citizens."
    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
    'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by
    'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
    else. That is what it means.
    Sen. Lyman Trumbull
    Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted above. How do
you explain that?
What "German parents" was Trumbull talking about?  Were they
naturalized? Do you have any clue?  No.
The fuller quote:

"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are
born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is
the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born
in this country of German parents a citizens?"

Lyman was referring to Germans who had not been naturalized.
How do you explain what Trumbull said during the judiciary committee debate?
Perhaps he meant what Gray said it meant in Wong: "It can hardly be
denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction
of the country in which he resides." That is, "complete" means if you
break the law in the USA, you are only subject to the US courts and US
law. Note, that does not hold true for Indians, hence the result in Elk.
How do you explain that Jacob Howard didn't say anything like what you quoted?
Howard said citizens at birth do not include children born in the USA of
parents "who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of
ambassadors or foreign ministers." Did he mean to say there are four
classes of parents whose children are excluded: 1) foreigners, 2)
aliens, 3) ambassadors and 4) foreign ministers. Or does "ambassadors or
foreign ministers" modify "foreigners, aliens" so there is only one
class of parents who children are excluded?

The former meaning is very odd for a couple of reasons. Firstly, why are
foreigners and aliens two distinct classes? That seems like a
redundancy. Secondly, why mention ambassadors and foreign ministers at
all? They are a subset of aliens or foreigners.

The latter meaning makes sense without oddities. It's only the children
of parents who are the subset of aliens/foreigners who are either
ambassadors or foreign ministers who are not included.
How do you explain that Gray, in Elk v. Wilkins, *expressly* confirmed
what the senators said?
See above.
Rudy Canoza
2020-11-16 06:41:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that
"subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete*
jurisdiction, including owing allegiance to the country, which an
alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I
am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of
good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not
citizens."
    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
    'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by
    'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
    else. That is what it means.
    Sen. Lyman Trumbull
    Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted above. How do
you explain that?
What "German parents" was Trumbull talking about?  Were they naturalized?
Do you have any clue?  No.
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born
here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the
law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this
country of German parents a citizens?"
Lyman was referring to Germans who had not been naturalized.
How do you explain what Trumbull said during the judiciary committee debate?
Perhaps he meant what Gray said it meant in Wong: "It can hardly be denied
that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the
country in which he resides."
That is false. The alien is *not* subject to the political jurisdiction of
the country in which he resides. He still owes allegiance to his country
of citizenship or subjecthood.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-11-16 15:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that
"subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete*
jurisdiction, including owing allegiance to the country, which an
alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a
citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the
counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German
parents are not citizens."
    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
    'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by
    'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
    else. That is what it means.
    Sen. Lyman Trumbull
    Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted above. How
do you explain that?
What "German parents" was Trumbull talking about?  Were they
naturalized? Do you have any clue?  No.
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are
born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This
is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child
born in this country of German parents a citizens?"
Lyman was referring to Germans who had not been naturalized.
How do you explain what Trumbull said during the judiciary committee debate?
Perhaps he meant what Gray said it meant in Wong: "It can hardly be
denied that an alien is completely subject to the political
jurisdiction of the country in which he resides."
That is false.  The alien is *not* subject to the political jurisdiction
of the country in which he resides.  He still owes allegiance to his
country of citizenship or subjecthood.
Your are equating jurisdiction to allegiance. Gray argued jurisdiction
is what courts hear a case.
Rudy Canoza
2020-11-16 16:03:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that
"subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete*
jurisdiction, including owing allegiance to the country, which an
alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?
I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of
good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not
citizens."
    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
    'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by
    'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
    else. That is what it means.
    Sen. Lyman Trumbull
    Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted above. How do
you explain that?
What "German parents" was Trumbull talking about?  Were they
naturalized? Do you have any clue?  No.
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are
born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is
the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born
in this country of German parents a citizens?"
Lyman was referring to Germans who had not been naturalized.
How do you explain what Trumbull said during the judiciary committee debate?
Perhaps he meant what Gray said it meant in Wong: "It can hardly be
denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction
of the country in which he resides."
That is false.  The alien is *not* subject to the political jurisdiction
of the country in which he resides.  He still owes allegiance to his
country of citizenship or subjecthood.
Your are equating jurisdiction to allegiance.
I'm using jurisdiction in the same sense Trumbull and Howard and, earlier,
Gray himself used it. The word as used in the citizenship clause has no
connection to courts. The entire clause means the same thing as "not
subject to any foreign power" in the 1866 civil rights act.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Gray argued jurisdiction is what courts hear a case.
No, that's not what he was arguing.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-11-16 16:08:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that
"subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete*
jurisdiction, including owing allegiance to the country, which
an alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a
citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of
the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of
German parents are not citizens."
    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
    'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by
    'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
    else. That is what it means.
    Sen. Lyman Trumbull
    Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted above.
How do you explain that?
What "German parents" was Trumbull talking about?  Were they
naturalized? Do you have any clue?  No.
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who
are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens.
This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the
child born in this country of German parents a citizens?"
Lyman was referring to Germans who had not been naturalized.
How do you explain what Trumbull said during the judiciary
committee debate?
Perhaps he meant what Gray said it meant in Wong: "It can hardly be
denied that an alien is completely subject to the political
jurisdiction of the country in which he resides."
That is false.  The alien is *not* subject to the political
jurisdiction of the country in which he resides.  He still owes
allegiance to his country of citizenship or subjecthood.
Your are equating jurisdiction to allegiance.
I'm using jurisdiction in the same sense Trumbull and Howard and,
earlier, Gray himself used it.  The word as used in the citizenship
clause has no connection to courts.  The entire clause means the same
thing as "not subject to any foreign power" in the 1866 civil rights act.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Gray argued jurisdiction is what courts hear a case.
No, that's not what he was arguing.
Shockingly, I disagree.
Rudy Canoza
2020-11-16 16:42:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that
"subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete*
jurisdiction, including owing allegiance to the country, which an
alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a
citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the
counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German
parents are not citizens."
    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
    'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by
    'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
    else. That is what it means.
    Sen. Lyman Trumbull
    Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted above. How
do you explain that?
What "German parents" was Trumbull talking about?  Were they
naturalized? Do you have any clue?  No.
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are
born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This
is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child
born in this country of German parents a citizens?"
Lyman was referring to Germans who had not been naturalized.
How do you explain what Trumbull said during the judiciary committee debate?
Perhaps he meant what Gray said it meant in Wong: "It can hardly be
denied that an alien is completely subject to the political
jurisdiction of the country in which he resides."
That is false.  The alien is *not* subject to the political
jurisdiction of the country in which he resides.  He still owes
allegiance to his country of citizenship or subjecthood.
Your are equating jurisdiction to allegiance.
I'm using jurisdiction in the same sense Trumbull and Howard and,
earlier, Gray himself used it.  The word as used in the citizenship
clause has no connection to courts.  The entire clause means the same
thing as "not subject to any foreign power" in the 1866 civil rights act.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Gray argued jurisdiction is what courts hear a case.
No, that's not what he was arguing.
Shockingly, I disagree.
Stupidly. Gray in no way was saying that jurisdiction as used in the
citizenship clause refers to what court hears a case.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same as "not subject to any
foreign power." I was not "equating" [sic] jurisdiction to allegiance. I
said, in agreement with Trumbull and Howard and Reverdy Johnson, that full
political jurisdiction *implies* allegiance. The tourist transiently
present in the U.S. does not owe allegiance to the U.S., *because* he is
not subject to the full political jurisdiction of the country.

It is beyond dispute that the authors and debaters of the citizenship
clause did not understand jurisdiction to mean merely the legal
jurisdiction. They said so, and Gray understood that they said so. His
about-face between Elk and Wong is completely incoherent.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-11-16 17:00:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear
that "subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the
*complete* jurisdiction, including owing allegiance to the
country, which an alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a
citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of
the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of
German parents are not citizens."
    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
    'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by
    'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
    else. That is what it means.
    Sen. Lyman Trumbull
    Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted above.
How do you explain that?
What "German parents" was Trumbull talking about?  Were they
naturalized? Do you have any clue?  No.
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who
are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are
citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present
time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a
citizens?"
Lyman was referring to Germans who had not been naturalized.
How do you explain what Trumbull said during the judiciary committee debate?
Perhaps he meant what Gray said it meant in Wong: "It can hardly
be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political
jurisdiction of the country in which he resides."
That is false.  The alien is *not* subject to the political
jurisdiction of the country in which he resides.  He still owes
allegiance to his country of citizenship or subjecthood.
Your are equating jurisdiction to allegiance.
I'm using jurisdiction in the same sense Trumbull and Howard and,
earlier, Gray himself used it.  The word as used in the citizenship
clause has no connection to courts.  The entire clause means the same
thing as "not subject to any foreign power" in the 1866 civil rights act.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Gray argued jurisdiction is what courts hear a case.
No, that's not what he was arguing.
Shockingly, I disagree.
Stupidly.  Gray in no way was saying that jurisdiction as used in the
citizenship clause refers to what court hears a case.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same as "not subject to
any foreign power."  I was not "equating" [sic] jurisdiction to
allegiance.  I said, in agreement with Trumbull and Howard and Reverdy
Johnson, that full political jurisdiction *implies* allegiance.  The
tourist transiently present in the U.S. does not owe allegiance to the
U.S., *because* he is not subject to the full political jurisdiction of
the country.
It is beyond dispute that the authors and debaters of the citizenship
clause did not understand jurisdiction to mean merely the legal
jurisdiction.  They said so, and Gray understood that they said so.  His
about-face between Elk and Wong is completely incoherent.
Given Trumbull's comments about non-citizen Germans, Howard's comment
about ambassadors, and Gray's opinion in Wong, it is obvious your claim
is disputed.
Rudy Canoza
2020-11-16 17:13:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear that
"subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the *complete*
jurisdiction, including owing allegiance to the country, which
an alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a
citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of
the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of
German parents are not citizens."
    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United
States, and
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means
    'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction thereof.' What do we
mean by
    'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody
    else. That is what it means.
    Sen. Lyman Trumbull
    Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted above.
How do you explain that?
What "German parents" was Trumbull talking about?  Were they
naturalized? Do you have any clue?  No.
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who
are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens.
This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the
child born in this country of German parents a citizens?"
Lyman was referring to Germans who had not been naturalized.
How do you explain what Trumbull said during the judiciary committee debate?
Perhaps he meant what Gray said it meant in Wong: "It can hardly be
denied that an alien is completely subject to the political
jurisdiction of the country in which he resides."
That is false.  The alien is *not* subject to the political
jurisdiction of the country in which he resides.  He still owes
allegiance to his country of citizenship or subjecthood.
Your are equating jurisdiction to allegiance.
I'm using jurisdiction in the same sense Trumbull and Howard and,
earlier, Gray himself used it.  The word as used in the citizenship
clause has no connection to courts.  The entire clause means the same
thing as "not subject to any foreign power" in the 1866 civil rights act.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Gray argued jurisdiction is what courts hear a case.
No, that's not what he was arguing.
Shockingly, I disagree.
Stupidly.  Gray in no way was saying that jurisdiction as used in the
citizenship clause refers to what court hears a case.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same as "not subject to
any foreign power."  I was not "equating" [sic] jurisdiction to
allegiance.  I said, in agreement with Trumbull and Howard and Reverdy
Johnson, that full political jurisdiction *implies* allegiance.  The
tourist transiently present in the U.S. does not owe allegiance to the
U.S., *because* he is not subject to the full political jurisdiction of
the country.
It is beyond dispute that the authors and debaters of the citizenship
clause did not understand jurisdiction to mean merely the legal
jurisdiction.  They said so, and Gray understood that they said so.  His
about-face between Elk and Wong is completely incoherent.
Given Trumbull's comments about non-citizen Germans, Howard's comment about
ambassadors, and Gray's opinion in Wong, it is obvious your claim is disputed.
Gray's opinion in Wong is incomprehensible and wrong. The founders made a
complete break with English common law in establishing the concept of
citizenship. Gray went back to common law subjecthood. He was wrong.
History
2020-11-16 19:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
The debate comments in the judiciary committee make clear
that "subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the
*complete* jurisdiction, including owing allegiance to the
country, which an alien never does.
"Is not the child born in this country of German parents a
citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some
of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children
born of German parents are not citizens."
    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the
United States, and
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.'
That means     'subject to the *complete* jurisdiction
thereof.' What do we mean by
    'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance
to anybody     else. That is what it means.
    Sen. Lyman Trumbull
    Chairman, Judiciary committee, 1866
And yet, the very same Lyman Trumbull said what I quoted
above. How do you explain that?
What "German parents" was Trumbull talking about?  Were they
naturalized? Do you have any clue?  No.
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children
who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are
citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present
time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a
citizens?"
Lyman was referring to Germans who had not been naturalized.
How do you explain what Trumbull said during the judiciary
committee debate?
Perhaps he meant what Gray said it meant in Wong: "It can
hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the
political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides."
That is false.  The alien is *not* subject to the political
jurisdiction of the country in which he resides.  He still owes
allegiance to his country of citizenship or subjecthood.
Your are equating jurisdiction to allegiance.
I'm using jurisdiction in the same sense Trumbull and Howard and,
earlier, Gray himself used it.  The word as used in the
citizenship clause has no connection to courts.  The entire
clause means the same thing as "not subject to any foreign power"
in the 1866 civil rights act.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Gray argued jurisdiction is what courts hear a case.
No, that's not what he was arguing.
Shockingly, I disagree.
Stupidly.  Gray in no way was saying that jurisdiction as used in
the citizenship clause refers to what court hears a case.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same as "not subject
to any foreign power."  I was not "equating" [sic] jurisdiction to
allegiance.  I said, in agreement with Trumbull and Howard and
Reverdy Johnson, that full political jurisdiction *implies*
allegiance.  The tourist transiently present in the U.S. does not
owe allegiance to the U.S., *because* he is not subject to the full
political jurisdiction of the country.
It is beyond dispute that the authors and debaters of the
citizenship clause did not understand jurisdiction to mean merely
the legal jurisdiction.  They said so, and Gray understood that
they said so.  His about-face between Elk and Wong is completely
incoherent.
Given Trumbull's comments about non-citizen Germans, Howard's comment
about ambassadors, and Gray's opinion in Wong, it is obvious your
claim is disputed.
Gray's opinion in Wong is incomprehensible and wrong. The founders
made a complete break with English common law in establishing the
concept of citizenship. Gray went back to common law subjecthood. He
was wrong.
You are incomprehensible and wrong. You're spounting the same left wing
dogma activists have been weaponizing to try and force an illegal alien
invasion down our throats.

Gronk
2020-11-16 05:30:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daily Beaner
Lino Graglia of the University of Texas Law School had a law
The 1866 Act begins with a statement from which the Citizenship
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is derived: “[A]ll 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 . . .” The phrase “and not subject to any
foreign power” seems clearly to exclude children of resident
aliens, legal as well as illegal. The Fourteenth Amendment
Citizenship Clause substituted the phrase “and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof,” but there is no indication of intent to
change the original meaning.
In the 39th Congress, which enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act
and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, the question arose of how
to avoid granting birthright citizenship to members of Indian
tribes living on reservations. The issue was whether an explicit
exclusion of Indians should be written into the Citizenship
Clause as it was in the above-quoted first sentence of the 1866
Act. It was decided that this was not necessary, because,
although Indians were at least partly subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, they owed allegiance to their
tribes, not to the United States.
COMMENTS
Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio
were the principal authors of the citizenship clauses in both
the 1866 Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull
stated that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, which means “[n]ot
owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Howard agreed that
“jurisdiction” meant a full and complete jurisdiction, the same
“in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United
States now.” Children born to Indian parents with tribal
allegiances were therefore necessarily excluded from birthright
citizenship, and explicit exclusion was unnecessary. This
reasoning would seem also to exclude birthright citizenship for
the children of legal resident aliens and, a fortiori, of
illegal aliens. It appears, therefore, that the Constitution,
far from clearly compelling the grant of birthright citizenship
to children of illegal aliens, is better understood as denying
the grant.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/14th-amendment-and-
birthright-citizenship-rich-lowry/
Yawn.
Loading...