How “Birthright Citizenship” went off the rails under the influence of the progressive ideological movement in the USA regarding recognizing citizenship in the USA as simply due to being born here as the sole determining factor. This paper covers the key gestation period for that thought in the last half of the 19th century. And it continued to get manipulated and loosened even more since 1898 via misinterpreting the true holding of Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme Court decision (parents had to be legally domiciled permanent residents of the USA to give children born in the USA birthright citizenship) to where we are now, i.e., even illegal aliens’ children are considered to have “birthright citizenship”. Read the below paper to learn how it all started and evolved in the last half of the 19th Century, with some writings of that era for and against the interpretation as to whom has “birthright citizenship”, and the progressives and liberals point of view of why they think this is good.
The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868-1898: States’ Rights, The Law of Nations, and Mutual Consent – by Bernadette Meyler, Cornell Law School – Spring 2001
This paper on Birthright Citizenship in the last half of the 19th century was brought to my attention by a researcher of citizenship law. Some key excerpts written by scholars, politicians, and various courts battling over the liberalization of “birthright citizenship”, and cited in this paper covering the time frame of the last half of the 19th century, are pointed out by him and herewith shared below. You can get a copy and read the full paper on the pros and cons of the debate on the subject of “birthright citizenship” during that time frame here or here .
Some important excerpts pointed out by the researcher (with some additions by the editor) are listed below with some key words and phrases which were highlighted by him, are in this format marked with italics and bold type for emphasis by the editor:
PDF document p. 14: In McKay v. Campbell, the U.S. District Court for the district of Oregon considered whether the plaintiff could be deemed a U.S. citizen, and should be allowed to vote. The defendants argued that McKay was British, since he was the child of a British subject, and had been born at a point when Britain and the United States had agreed-for the moment-to occupy the territory jointly. Judge Deady, evaluating the case, narrowed the issue to that of birthright citizenshipunder the Fourteenth Amendment, which he interpreted in terms of the common law; as he asserted, eliding jurisdiction and allegiance, “The case turns upon the single point – was the plaintiff born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – under its allegiance? Citing Calvin’s Case, the Judge recalled Lord Coke’s statement that “To make a subject born, the parents must be under the actual obedience of the king, and the place of birth be within the king’s obedience, as well as within his dominion. According to Judge Deady’s reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is “nothing more than declaratory of the rule of the common law,” and, therefore, the citizen’s allegiance at birth must be evaluated. In McKay’s case, “The child, although born on soil … subsequently acknowledged to be the territory of the United States, was not at the time of its birth under the power or protection of the United States, and without these the mere place of birth cannot impose allegiance or confer citizenship.
PDF document p. 17: The contrast that Stoney drew between national allegiance and national jurisdiction did not respond to a common law interpretation of allegiance, but instead to an internationalist one, which would insist that the allegiance of the parent governs the child as well.
PDF document p.28: As Morse quoted Justice Marshall, “The law of nations … is a law founded on the great and immutable principles of equity and natural justice.” The following were included among the numerous works on the subject cited in treatises and articles on citizenship: Bar, International Law; Field, International Code; Foelix, Droit International Prive; Savigny on Private International Law; Phillimore, International Law; Story, Conflict of Laws; and Vattel, Law of Nations.
PDF document p. 29: the subject of citizenship being national, questions relating to it are to be determined by the general principles of the law of nations.
PDF document p. 44: The words ‘not subject to any foreign power’ do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government.
9. Read the dozen of legal essays and court briefs written by constitutional and citizenship expert Attorney Mario Apuzzo on being a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and the pretenders and usurpers in three major political parties (Democrat, Republican, and Socialist parties) – who invalidly claimed such birth status – at his legal blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
” … “TrusTed” (one of his campaign slogans) Ted Cruz, born in a foreign nation to an alien father, is running for President. Eligibility to be elected President is found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which provides: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Since Cruz was born in 1970, he must be not only a “citizen” of the United States, but a “natural born citizen” of the United States in order to be eligible to be elected President. So, is Cruz a natural born citizen? The answer is “no.” …
The Founders and Framers wrote the Constitution in a way that best provided for the protection of our unalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. They sought to do that by giving us a constitutional republic and providing for the survival and preservation of that republic. In the governmental scheme that they gave us, they provided for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, a singular and all-powerful office involving the concentration of both civilian and military power into one person. Because of such concentration of power in one individual, the Framers recognized that such offices also presented great risk to the republic and its people. They therefore gave us the “natural born Citizen” clause as one basis for eligibility to such offices. Through the natural born citizen clause, they instructed us that such power must fall into the hands of a person who can be trusted with it to the greatest degree possible and that such guarantee is of much greater importance to the survival and preservation of the constitutional republic than the fleeting politics and personal favor of having one person necessarily occupy that office. What is profound is that the Founders and Framers put their trust in “Nature and Nature’s God” and not in political and legal institutions to accomplish that end.
This historical and legal evidence, not meant to be exhaustive, provides a clear picture that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President. So, is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen and to be “Trusted?” I think not. … “
Ted Cruz Ignores a Key Question About U.S. Citizenship – Can He Prove It?
Where is the Copy of his U.S. Consular Record of Birth Abroad (CRBA) Form Required to Get an Official U.S. Citizenship Certificate Due to His Foreign Birth Abroad in Canada and His Living There for His Initial Years?
More historical and legal papers and analysis on the true constitutional meaning and intent of the founders and framers of the presidential eligibility clause, natural born Citizen, in our U.S. Constitution can be found at this link: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3301209/
You must be logged in to post a comment.