Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution

[JakeStarkey]

Neither far right nor far left give a shred about the Constitution.

 

[mudwhistle]

I thought right wingers worshipped the unchangable constitution?

Obviously the left has changed it's application from it's original intent.

 

[g5000]

The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

Nope. It was meant to exclude diplomats who are immune from US jurisdiction, not children born here.

In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to anyone born here. It was vetoed twice by Johnson, but Congress overrode it with a two-thirds majority.

This was in the same time frame as the 14th Amendment. So your claim the framers of the 14th did not intend birthright citizenship is complete bullshit.

Didn't read the link, did ya? Read it and try again.

I provided the actual Congressional Record, dumbass. That trumps any out of context quotes from it.

And the Congressional Record makes it plain as day that all children born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. The ONLY exclusions were for children of foreign ministers and ambassadors and American Indians.

Like I said earlier, the sponsor of the 14th amendment overestimated the intelligence of people like you when he said all doubt was removed who was a citizen.

Right, that's why it excluded American Indians, right? Congress passed a law in the 1920's to make them US citizens.

Yes, it excluded American Indians because they were not under US jurisdiction. Babies born to American Indians were citizens of their particular tribe.

 

[g5000]

I thought right wingers worshipped the unchangable constitution?

Obviously the left has changed it's application from it's original intent.

Nope. It is you fools who are trying to redefine citizenship. The original intent has always been all children born under US jurisdiction are US citizens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

Nope. It was meant to exclude diplomats who are immune from US jurisdiction, not children born here.

In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to anyone born here. It was vetoed twice by Johnson, but Congress overrode it with a two-thirds majority.

This was in the same time frame as the 14th Amendment. So your claim the framers of the 14th did not intend birthright citizenship is complete bullshit.

Didn't read the link, did ya? Read it and try again.

I provided the actual Congressional Record, dumbass. That trumps any out of context quotes from it.

And the Congressional Record makes it plain as day that all children born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. The ONLY exclusions were for children of foreign ministers and ambassadors and American Indians.

Like I said earlier, the sponsor of the 14th amendment overestimated the intelligence of people like you when he said all doubt was removed who was a citizen.

Right, that's why it excluded American Indians, right? Congress passed a law in the 1920's to make them US citizens.

Yes, it excluded American Indians because they were not under US jurisdiction. Babies born to American Indians were citizens of their particular tribe.

Well that depended on time and location.

 

[g5000]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil,...

Actually, they made it very clear they intended exactly that.

...something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[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.

The allegiance phrase has to do with ambassadors and foreign ministers. If it meant what you mistakenly think it means, the children of foreigners here on visas would not have a US birthright. But they do.

If your mistaken interpretation was right, then you would have to explain how a foreigner here on a visa does not have an allegiance to a foreign power while an illegal immigrant does. US v. Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of foreigners under US jurisdiction have a US birthright. So that clearly means foreigners who are not ambassadors or foreign ministers do not have an allegiance to another government.

An ambassador or foreign minister has an obvious allegiance to a foreign power, and that is why their children, and only their children, were excluded by the sponsor of the 14th Amendment.

You are simply wrong, and the Congressional Record and US v. Wong Kim Ark plainly state you are wrong.

 

[Rotagilla]

I thought right wingers worshipped the unchangable constitution?

Obviously the left has changed it's application from it's original intent.

Nope. It is you fools who are trying to redefine citizenship. The original intent has always been all children born under US jurisdiction are US citizens.

incorrect;
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution


snip.......Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[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.

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.

It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that fourteenth amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own home grown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."

The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the constitution.

A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the citizenship clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can be.

James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]


What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rotagill, your argument is understood, but just not accepted as binding.

It won't be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It needs to go to the Court, despite the fact that most conservatives abhor the thought of unelected tyrannical judges deciding the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It needs to go to the Court, despite the fact that most conservatives abhor the thought of unelected tyrannical judges deciding the law.

Of course, they do. They know they will lose. They can't get in through Congress, even with a Republican president.

 

[g5000]

The ONLY requirement for US birthright is being born to parents under US jurisdiction. There is no additional requirement.

The sponsor of the 14 amendment, and the Supreme Court in 1898, both made it clear that only the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. The "allegiance" red herring collapses when you realize the children born here to foreigners on a visa have a US birthright. This makes is blazingly obvious the "allegiance" exception does not apply to any foreigners but ambassadors or foreign ministers.

 

[Dana7360]

Levin is absolutely correct, nothing in the 14th amendment grants birthright citizenship to aliens.. actually, it specifically prohibits it.

Here's the full text of the 14th amendment. Please point out where it says aliens are denied citizenship.

A person who is born in America is not an alien. The person who gave birth to the child may be an illegal alien but they aren't being considered in this law. It's the child born in America who is considered a citizen.

It doesn't say one word about illegal aliens in the 14th amendment.

Stop lying.




Text
Section 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

 

[g5000]

Levin is absolutely correct, nothing in the 14th amendment grants birthright citizenship to aliens.. actually, it specifically prohibits it.

You obviously have never read the 14th amendment. Otherwise you would not have said such a boneheaded thing.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

The last 8 years has taught US that the branches of government, processes, and Constitution can be bypassed in order to achieve a goal. Precedent has been set. Hurts when you are on the other side, doesn't it?
It's you people that need to decide if you want US as a Country to be beholden to process. If not, you are standing in sand when you are trying to make a point about adhering to process and the Constitution.

What? I thought right wingers were all about the constitution. Amazing how quickly you turn traitorous and want to throw it out when you don't get your way.

You people don't like the Constitution because it was written by white slave owners influenced by Jesus.

 

[g5000]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

The last 8 years has taught US that the branches of government, processes, and Constitution can be bypassed in order to achieve a goal. Precedent has been set. Hurts when you are on the other side, doesn't it?
It's you people that need to decide if you want US as a Country to be beholden to process. If not, you are standing in sand when you are trying to make a point about adhering to process and the Constitution.

What? I thought right wingers were all about the constitution. Amazing how quickly you turn traitorous and want to throw it out when you don't get your way.

You people don't like the Constitution because it was written by white slave owners influenced by Jesus.

Straw man.

 

[Camp]

There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.

 

[Dana7360]

You are drinking early, boyo.

Scream all you want, but Congress can't and won't end the citizenship for babies born here iaw the 14th.

Start an amendment process and stop whining.



And, nope, you are not going to get to the store tonight.

The reason these idiots are coming up with excuse to bypass the constitution and the legal process to amend it is because they know that there's absolutely no chance that they'll be able to amend the constitution to what they want. It has to pass a super majority in the House of Reps and the Senate. Then it has to go to the states and a super majority of the states have to vote on it and pass it.

These stupid people know there's absolutely no chance they will succeed in what they want to do so they're coming up with excuses on why they can do it unconstitutionally.

For a party that screams how much they love our nation and our constitution they sure don't act like it and they seem to want to make a lot of changes to the constitution.

They're nothing but liars.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is exactly right, "The reason these idiots are coming up with excuse to bypass the constitution and the legal process to amend it is because they know that there's absolutely no chance that they'll be able to amend the constitution to what they want." They are losers in the American narrative.

 

[g5000]

There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.

Everyone else is.


Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.

When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.

Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.

Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.

The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.

The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.

The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.

 

[Rotagilla]

incorrect..you distort and obfuscate.

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution


Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[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.

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.

It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that fourteenth amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own home grown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."

The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the constitution.

A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the citizenship clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can be.

James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]


What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.