September 29, 2011 3 Comments
The principle of jus sanguinis is law by the Fourteenth Amendment
The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, stated in 1866
: “We must depend on the general law recognized by all nations relating to citizens for a definition , and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” [“Temporary sojourners” like transient aliens were a description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel, visitation or school,]
“When children inherit the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs to regardless of where they might be born. Citizenship through descent from the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.”
Children are subject to the jurisdiction of their father. If the father is subject to U.S. jurisdiction by permanent residency, then by the principle of jus sanguinis his children are likewise subject through their hereditary connection to him. That is transmitted two ways. If he is un-naturalized then children born to him in the U.S. are automatically subject also and are naturalized at birth. They are citizens by automatic naturalization. But they are not citizens by birth to him because he is not a citizen.
If he becomes naturalized, then children born to him abroad, prior to immigration, are automatically naturalized also by jus sanguinis citizenship inheritance. They are not forced to wait until they are adults and then also go through the process to be naturalized. Instead that status of the father is applied simultaneously to his foreign born children via jus sanguinis.
[“The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one alone before finally becoming a citizen.”]
United States Attorney General George Williams ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens…” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.” [excluding all foreign diplomats, visitors, and Native Americans]
Since US citizens and legal permanent residents don’t owe allegiance to any other nation, arguing that mere physical presence in the US, and being subject to non-political & military laws makes one subject to US jurisdiction is absurd because being subject to another countries laws while visiting makes no change to an aliens allegiance to their own native country.
Obama Sr. was not subject to US jurisdiction since he was a foreign visitor with a student visa, and therefore his son’s birth in the U.S. was not covered by the 14th Amendment.
Obama’s native birth (still unproven with any certification) is irrelevant because his birth to an alien visitor left him not subject to U.S. Jurisdiction.
No one born to an alien father was born a natural citizen.
No one not subject to the full political and military jurisdiction of the United States at birth is a citizen by the 14th Amendment.
No one who’s citizenship is outside of the 14th Amendment is a natural citizen but is instead a citizen by statute.
Obama’s citizenship is solely through his mother, -by statute. No one who is a citizen by statute is a natural citizen.
No one who is a citizen by statute was born as a natural citizen.
No one who is not a natural citizen (by birth, not merely at birth) is eligible to be the President of the United States.
Someone stated in response to the Slaughterhouse quote: “According to this statement by the Court, those born in the country of alien parents are not citizens of the U.S.”
The statement by the court regarding those who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, which excluded foreign citizens, did not take into account foreign citizens/subjects who were immigrants, as in permanent legal residents of the U.S. rather that temporary visitors. The legal definitions of foreigners and aliens divides them into two very distinct categories, namely; Immigrant Aliens (unnaturalized), and Non-immigrant aliens or Foreigners. Immigrant aliens are adjudged to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore their U.S. born children are deemed to be U.S. citizens even without the naturalization of the parents. Their citizenship is statutory automatic citizenship, but not natural citizenship.
Slaughterhouse quote: “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” It appears that the court in this statement made no distinction between immigrant aliens and non-immigrant aliens, so it can be asserted that the court in Wong chose to proclaim immigrant alien children to be citizens without any historical legal foundation, -though the Immigration Service up until then may have done so on its own depending on who was in the White House.
Gray wrote in Wong Kim Ark 1898: “…it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship…” While that’s seemingly in contradiction to his earlier stance in Elk v Wilkins, that may not be the case if you consider the import of the words “were not intended to exclude”. If you assume that he knew full well that by not distinguishing between children born to alien visitors and children born to alien immigrants that the wording would indicate a blanket denial of citizenship to ALL children born of aliens, then you can say that he did an about face. But if in his mind he failed to grasp the over-simplification of the exclusionary wording and how all-inclusive it was, then it could be assumed that at the time of the Elk decision and opinion, that he ignorantly presumed that the words wouldn’t be construed to include children of immigrants. There’s no way to know if he was just linguistically stupid in not grasping the full meaning of the words he quoted from Slaughterhouse or if he did and later pretended that that meaning was stupid for including immigrant children. Either way there’s a mark against either his intellectual competence or his integrity.
Civil Rights Act 1866 “‘All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States” Nearly every word in that sentence is significant, including “are hereby declared to be…” The use of the word “are” was a mistake since it referred only to those alive when it was written, and not to future cases of the yet unborn. Also, the use of the phrase “declared to be” clearly indicates that such citizenship is by act of Congress and is therefore a form of naturalization, and not natural citizenship. The 14th Amendment didn’t repeat such wording and resulted in a very different meaning, including the change to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. That demonstrates that it was U.S. policy to not consider whether or not any foreign nation feels it has jurisdiction over children born in the U.S. to their subjects/ citizens. Instead its only consideration is whether of not it views children born to aliens to be subject to its own jurisdiction. Wong resulted in the position that U.S. policy is that U.S. born children of aliens are subject through their parents and all immigrants are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, though that still excludes foreign visitors of whatever type.
This section contains a logic error: ““in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States”, the truth is that they were completely and *permanently*(???) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., because the treaty with the Emperor of China *ALLOWED* them to permanently change their home and allegiance. The ties that bound them to China *HAD BEEN SEVERED* by the treaty,”
No ties were severed by one being allowed to sever ties. It would have taken a pro-active action to sever those ties in a recognized manner, such as taking an oath of allegiance to the United States before a magistrate which included renouncing allegiance to the Emperor. Also, this statement is illogical: “China released its subjects from owing any allegiance at all to their mother country.” Subjects weren’t released from owing allegiance unless they personally choose to be released. It wasn’t forced upon them by the treaty. None of its statements proclaim that permanent residence is a de facto renunciation of their allegiance to their emperor. The treaty merely allows them to make that choice because it is their human right. It’s not mandatory. Permanent allegiance need not accompany permanent residence. It’s a choice. But permanent residence does involve subjection to the jurisdiction of the national government. It is that jurisdiction that was deemed the basis of granting U.S. citizenship to children of aliens. Such alien immigrants are not U.S. nationals because that requires being born within a territory over which the U.S. exercises sovereignty, such as American Samoa, and the Swain Islands.
my favorite points: 1.Those requiring naturalization are not natural-born.” 2. “…the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was a naturalization act”
3. “The only congressional power to regulate citizenship pertains to naturalization.” 4. “…no citizen is eligible to be POTUS who wouldn’t have been eligible prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment.” Allow me to add one of my own: No one is a natural citizen if their citizenship is by law because Congress was not given the authority to legislate regarding the status of natural citizens. Their citizenship comes by a law that was never written because it didn’t need to be. AN
Official Definition of Immigrant:
There’s a bigger issue than ignorance of U.S. law, and it’s in regard to the inadequacy of U.S. law. The policy of law that I’ve been logically but blindly espousing isn’t just a supposition of my imagination after all since it’s codified, as I recently discovered here:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1101
§ 1101. Definitions
(15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes
of nonimmigrant aliens—
(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;…
(B) an alien (other than one coming for the purpose of study or of performing skilled or unskilled labor or as a representative of foreign press, radio, film, or other foreign information media coming to engage in such vocation) having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning and who is visiting the United States temporarily for business or temporarily for pleasure;…
(i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study..
None of those in the extensive list of foreigners presently within the U.S. can be considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States since they are instead subject to international treaty and the jurisdiction of their own nation. They aren’t immigrants, they are foreigners and foreigners aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Any view to the contrary is a manifestation of ignorance and irrationality. Unfortunately, many people in positions of authority have been taught by teachers who were ignorant and irrational. AN