14th Amendment Page 3 -WKA & Jurisdiction

“a peculiar relation to the national government -UNKNOWN TO THE COMMON LAW”

“Quotes from the Supreme Court citizenship case of Wong Kim Ark 1898  The courts remarks included:
The real object of the 14th amendment of the constitution [defining U.S. citizenship], in qualifying the words “all persons born in the United States” by the addition of  “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country…”
This paragraph includes a statement that is an invaluable aid to grasping a fact that is easily overlooked by those with a strict allegiance to the legal consensus status quo, and that is the fact that even assumed-to-be fundamental principles are not written in stone, but are molded to accomodate reality.  The statement was written in regard to Native Americans, a group that didn’t fit into the accepted principles of assigning citizenship since they had a “peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law”.  It was a situation for which there was no “rule book” so they had to adjust and improvise to come-up with a workable position for the government.  That was an unknown situation then, and unknown situations haven’t disappear over time, but have increased.
When the Constitution was written there was no such thing as motorized trans-border transportation or migration.  There was no such thing as masses of foreign humans willing to sacrifice almost everything in order to cross the borders of the 13 States to be able to work in the new United States.  There was no such thing as huge flying machines that can transport humans through the are and across a continent or an ocean, -carrying foreign humans who would be permitted to visit the United States is vast numbers.  It’s safe to say that such situations  were also “unknown to the common law”.
But now, instead of births to foreign invaders occupying our national territory standing out as “exceptions”, instead we have the totally unexpected and unknown situation of millions of people occupying our country illegally.  Where is that situation in the common law with its fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country? Now there are vast numbers of occupants of our nation who have a “peculiar relation to the national government” instead of a relatively small number of cases.  How does the historically blind government deal with these invaders?  It declares their children to be U.S. citizens (!) because of the mistaken belief that “the fundamental rule of citizenship” demands it.  This insane approach makes it possible that a firstborn child born across the border before the family is smuggled in the U.S. will have siblings just a year or two younger who are considered U.S. citizens while they are considered aliens.  How does a government sanely deal with such a peculiar relationship when it confronts the task of deportation?  It can’t because there is no solution.
This madness is purely the result of the aberrant, disfunctional, and historically uncivilized practice of the principle of national status based on birth location, rather than parentage.

“This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word ‘jurisdiction,’ in the last clause of the same section of the fourteenth amendment, which forbids any state to ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ It is impossible to construe the words ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words ‘within its jurisdiction,’ in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the states of the Union are not ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’”
This logic is totally pedantic and sophoristic logic.  The word “within” relates to space and boundaries, while “subject” relates to relationships between two parties.  Being within the jurisdiction or authority is not synonymous with being subject to the authority unless one is a programmed robot.  Entities, including foreigners (and governments), have certain rights and their relationship is not solely a product of occupying a certain space claimed by the authority.  Rather it is contingent on certain conditions, it’s conditional.  If conditions are met then one may choose to be in rebellion instead of submission or subjection.  Outlaws, bandits, invaders, rebels and enemy combatants may be within the King’s/the government’s territory but not be subject to the authority.  This principle is shown by the existance of universally accepted exceptions.  The exceptions are evidence that the government’s sovereignty is limited by certain principles and is not absolute.  This is true either by necessity, or by necessity along with the chosen policy of the government.
Foreign representatives, independent Native Americans and Aleuts, and visiting foreigners are not subject to the U.S. federal jusidiction, and cannot be ordered to be conscripted into the military, nor forced to file income tax, nor buy health care insurance, nor to not visit Cuba, nor tried for treason.  They are immune to the full political authority of the federal government all the while being subject to civil and criminal law (except as exempted by treaty).  A child born to a visiting foreign woman is a child that can’t be presumed to have a future of growing up in America anymore because, unlike the past, the mother/parents can simply drive or fly right out of the country on any chosen day.  The paragym has changed from rural to urban, from urban to suburban, from county to state, from state to national, from national to international.  We live in a different world but our concepts of the principles of citizenship are frozen in the ignorant past, ossified and we are now the victims of that ignorance.

“It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher’s case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: ‘Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a foreign born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.’” Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92.
This is an amazing presumption that is based solely of fallacious impressions.  What is stated is the policy of a dictatorship, not a free democratic republic.  Its position is that anyone who visits the United States is subject to being drafted into the Army.  The truth is the exact opposite of what is claimed.  “It can hardly be denied…it is well known that…”  These assertions are false and fly in the face of reason.  They only have validity if the words “independently of ” are omitted, because they make the statement ridiculously erroneous.  Subjection to political jurisdiction is totally dependent on any of the situations enumerated being true rather than not being true.  It hinges on the meaning of the word “resides”.  Residence (domicilation) is the opposite of transiency (visitation) and those two possible situations determine the government’s established view of whether or not one is subject to its jurisdiction.

“To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
The 14th Amendment was written to guarantee citizenship to children born of U.S. immigrants.  By it they are native born citizens.  If their parents are naturalized to become U.S. citizens, the children subsequently born to them will be natural born citizens, -born to citizen parents.  If the parents are not naturalized, nor even immigrants but only visitors, their children are ineligible to be the president of the United States because they would not be natural born citizens.

“So it is settled. Persons born here are fully and completely subject to our jurisdiction, and are citizens by birth [with exceptions]. All you need to finish the question of presidential eligibility is a dictionary. No wonder the Supreme Court decided not to get involved.”
This statement reveals the magnitude of ignorance that is endemic in the country.  Not only is it factually baseless, but it’s also logically baseless.  Its assumption is that native birth confers eligibility.  Or a more complex assumption is that native-birth citizenship is equivalent to natural born citizenship which looks at only their similarities and ignores their differences.

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

One Response to 14th Amendment Page 3 -WKA & Jurisdiction

  1. arnash says:

    Regarding trans-Atlantic travel in past centuries, those who made frequent trips were not those who immigrated, because making frequent trips would indicate the status of being wealthy visitors/businessmen, while immigrants were not the wealthy but instead were those who aspired to become wealthier than they could hope to be in Europe where there was little opportunity unless born to wealth or blessed with a wealthy mentor or benefactor. As I’ve held, visitors are not immigrants and immigrants are not visitors.

    “The distinction between an alien and immigrant was intent to naturalize.”
    I assume that such a distinction is found nowhere in U.S. law for the simple reason that mind reading is impossible. No one can tell another’s intent, although the magistrates responsible for ascertaining the character and intent of immigrants seeking citizenship were given the task of attempting it. But mainly, visible evidence was relied upon to ascertain intent, and that evidence was of domiciliation and, I would assume, obtaining legal federal permission to remain in the country.

    “Under U.S. law, the children of immigrants became citizens upon successful naturalization of the father.”
    That may have been the law, but the law was not the only influence, official administrative policy was also in effect and it granted citizenship to children of immigrants even in the absence of law. That policy was not in violation of any law as you seem to assume and therefore the Wong decision also was not in violation of none-existent law. It abided by the literal meaning of the 14th Amendment because doing otherwise would have been in violation of the Constitution. I presume there was no law or court ruling that clearly defined the meaning of being subject to U.S. jurisdiction until it was decided by the SCOTUS in the Wong decision, -which then became the constitutional standard that replaced any administrative policy that preceded it.

    “Wong Kim Ark subverted U.S. legislated Act” When did the Court’s constitutional prerogative to interpret the law become subversion of the law? They construed the 14th Amendment and that ruling superseded any administrative interpretation which was constitutionally inferior in authority.

    The natural law of jus sanguinis is nullified when a couple moves to another country and put down roots. That results is a reset of what is natural when it comes to children born to them. It’s natural to be a member of the group into which one is born and raised, -regardless of the parents being, or not being, natural members. Jus Sanguinis has boundaries and those boundaries are the result of unnatural situations, like migration. That’s why the U.S. citizenship of foreign-born grandchildren, who were born to foreign born children of foreign domiciled U.S. citizens, is not passed to them unless one of their parents has lived in the U.S. In such persons, the effect of being raised in a foreign nation by parents also raised as members of that nation, is that one’s physical-psychological familiarity with their environment has a far greater influence in fostering allegiance than the abstract influence of their parent’s citizenship in a nation that they’ve never lived in. Hence, ascribing citizenship to children of immigrants is the only practical solution to an unnatural situation.

    The problem is that the looney government policy is to view any woman who steps foot into the U.S., legally or illegally, and delivers a baby here, is somehow viewed as being an immigrant even though they clearly aren’t and therefore are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, nor is their child subject through them. I don’t believe legislation is required to fix that stupid situation, only political will since it isn’t based on law or judicial ruling, merely arbitrary administrative policy. But of course, attempting to change it would have political consequences and legal consequences also since attempts would be made to block it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: