How “Birthright Citizen” Went Off the Rails! — The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868-1898: States’ Rights, The Law of Nations, and Mutual Consent | by Bernadette Meyler | Cornell Law School

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 citizenship under 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 Statesunder 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.

Image added by the editor. Click on image for more on the importance of the Law of Nations and Natural Law in regards to citizenship of a country and allegiance requirements and claims of same. The Law of Nations is cited in our U.S. Constitution. Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law greatly influenced many of the founders of our nation such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington and the framers of our U.S. Constitution.

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.

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

1.  A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.

2. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.

3. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something.  All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”:  https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ 

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html  or  https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts 

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8  and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

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

Ted Cruz: Neither a Natural Born Citizen Nor “TrusTed” | by Atty Mario Apuzzo

Click on image to read his new essay
Click on image to read his new essay by this constitutional Article II “natural born Citizen” term scholar and expert

Ted Cruz:  Neither a Natural Born Citizen Nor “TrusTed” | by Atty Mario Apuzzo

”  … “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.”  …

.

[snip]

.

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”[15] 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.[16]  So, is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen and to be “Trusted?”  I think not.  … “

Continue reading the entire new article by Atty Apuzzo’s at:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-neither-natural-born-citizen.html

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Ted Cruz Cannot Constitutionally Stand for President or VP. He is Constitutionally Missing Two Legs!
Ted Cruz Cannot Constitutionally Stand for President and Commander in Chief or VP. He is Constitutionally Missing Two Legs!

P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.
P.P.P.S. Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to U.S. Constitutional standards. Read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ Also read the “Three Legged Stool Test” for Natural Born Citizen https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

Ted Cruz Ignores a Key Question About U.S. Citizenship – Can He Prove It?

Ted Cruz Cannot Constitutionally Stand for President or VP.  He is Constitutionally Missing Two Legs!
Ted Cruz Cannot Constitutionally Stand for President or VP. He is Constitutionally Missing Two Legs!

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?

Read the breaking news story here:   http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/02/26/ted-cruz-ignores-question-about-u-s-citizenship/

# # # #

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/

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

P.S. Also read — Redux for People Seeking Constitutionally Eligible Presidential Candidates: http://www.scribd.com/doc/160107354/Natural-Born-Citizen-3-Not-4-Leaf-Clover-Type-of-Citizenship

P.P.S. Also read this essay regarding the constitutional term in the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

ProtectOurLiberty WebsiteSpaceMy BlogSpaceDocs Collections Re Obama SpaceMy YouTube SpaceMost Recent Full Pg Ad SpaceAd Archives SpaceFliers/Handouts SpaceBlock Ads SpaceSheriff to Sheriffs – Sheriff Kit Project SpaceGet A Sheriff Kit SpaceInterviews-Audio/Print SpaceBooks SpaceGoat’s Ledge SpaceContact Me

Sign the Petition: “Cuban Citizen at Birth” Marco Rubio is NOT Constitutionally Eligible to be President or VP

Sign the Petition and Mail Signed Copies of It to Local, State, and National Newspaper Editors and Members of the Electronic Media and Those in Elected Office.

Sign the Cuban Citizen Marco Rubio Petition Electronically by Clicking Here.  Or Download a PDF Copy and Print It Out to Mail or Fax or Use It as an Educational Handout at Political Events by Clicking Here.  For the Petition to Address Canadian-Born Citizen Ted Cruz’s Lack of Eligibility Click Here.

  “Cuban Citizen at Birth” Marco Rubio

is NOT Constitutionally Eligible to be President or VP

MarcoRubioWithCubanFlag

“Cuban Citizen at Birth” Marco Rubio
Is NOT Constitutionally Eligible

A PETITION FROM THE UNDERSIGNED

Recognizing that Marco Rubio is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and is NOT constitutionally eligible to be President or Vice-President.

Whereas, as put into the Constitution of the United States in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 by our founding fathers and framers, it requires that to be eligible for the Office of the President and Commander in Chief of our military forces, a person alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution had a “grandfather clause” therein, that said person only had to be a “Citizen” of the United States, but that in the future a person born after the adoption and ratification of our U.S. Constitution they had to be more than just a “Citizen” of the United States, but must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States;

Whereas Marco Rubio was not alive at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and cannot avail himself of the “grandfather clause” therein available to only the original “Citizens” and therefore has to meet the more restrictive “natural born Citizen” clause;

Whereas the founders and framers considered in the summer of 1787 in an early draft of the Constitution to requiring the President to be simply only a “Citizen”, and then per Alexander Hamilton’s suggestions he proposed strengthening the requirement a bit more by requiring the person who would be a future President be “born a Citizen” for the presidential eligibility clause, the framers did not adopt either of those less restrictive citizenship terms as strong enough protection against “foreign influence”, but required instead at the written letter suggestion by John Jay (who became the 1st U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice) to George Washington that the future Presidents had to be a “natural born Citizen” to be the President and Commander in Chief as a “strong check” against “foreign influence” by birth upon a future President and Commander in Chief once the founding generation had passed;

Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is not specifically defined in the Constitution of the United States (since the Constitution does not include a glossary but was written in commonly understood language of that time as was explained in the Federalist Papers using language and terms that were clearly understood by them and the people of the USA who were called upon to adopt and ratify it), and thus we must look elsewhere outside the Constitution to what the people of founding and framing era understood said “natural born Citizen” term to mean (as such direction to do so is mentioned in the U.S. Supreme Court Case of (1875) Minor v Happersett), in order to determine its “originalist” meaning to those that chose that term and those that voted for and adopted and ratified the U.S. Constitution;

Whereas the Laws of Nature and Natural Law as evidenced by the Preamble of our Declaration of Independence strongly influenced our revolution and break away from England and the writing of our founding documents;

Whereas, per the preeminent legal treatise much read by the founders and framers, the “Principles of Natural Law” by Emer de Vattel (1758/1775/1797) and the colonial common law familiar to the founders and framers, they and the people of the founding and framing era understood that a “natural born Citizen” was a person born in the country to parents who were BOTH Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens as long as they are both Citizens) of the country when their child was born in the country, and that term was chosen as a future national security clause as a “strong check” against “foreign influence” by or at birth on the person who would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military forces once the founding generation had passed;

Whereas that Natural Law definition provided by Vattel’s founding era legal treatise was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court “Venus” case decision of 1814 in the citizenship discussion in that case as the best on citizenship and was quoted in that case, and that a person born in the country to parents who were both citizens (born or naturalized) when their child was born in the country were the facts at birth conferring “natural born Citizenship” on a person was cited in several subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions including Perkins v Elg, 307, U.S. 325 (1939) when the citizenship status of a party to a case was a key matter in determining a case before that court;

Whereas while Marco Rubio was clearly and admittedly born in the United States, he was born to a non-U.S. Citizen (Cuban Citizen) alien father and a non-U.S. Citizen (Cuban Citizen) alien mother who were legally in the United States under work permit visas, he was thus not born a U.S. “Citizen” per Natural Law;

Whereas whiles Cuba is a neighboring country and diplomatic relationships are currently being restored with it, Cuba has in the past been a very hostile neighbor, Cuba is a foreign country and is not part of the United States or its territorial jurisdictions;

Whereas because Marco Rubio was born in the United States to non-U.S. Citizen Cuban parents, that said Marco Rubio was thus born with dual-Citizenship, i.e., a “Citizen” of the United States due to his place of birth in the USA under generally interpreted jus soli rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court re the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, he was also born with “Cuban Citizenship at Birth”, which he inherited from his Cuban father and mothervia jus sanguinis Laws of Nature and the Constitution and Laws of Cuba;

Whereas Marco Rubio was born a Citizen of two sovereign countries and thus has birth allegiance to two countries at birth, he was thus born with “foreign influence” upon himself via citizenship at birth of more than one country and thus he was born with dual foreign allegiances, and has divided allegiances and national loyalties at and by birth, exactly what the founders and framers did NOT want for the person who would be President and Commander in Chief of our military forces in the future after the founding generation, the original “Citizens”, had passed away;

Whereas even though under the Wong King Ark (1898) ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Marco Rubio is generally considered by the general public to be a 14th Amendment “born Citizen” of the United States because he was born in the United States to alien parents legally in the United States under work permit visas, Marco Rubio is definitely NOT a constitutional Article II Section 1 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” of the United States;

Whereas Congress under its powers granted to it in the U.S. Constitution in Article I and the U.S. Supreme Court in the powers granted to it in the U.S. Constitution in Article III can only make persons “Citizens” by their acts and rulings, either by the person’s place and status at birth or after birth, subject to certain precedent and subsequent conditions and actions required that may exist and are outlined in said laws and court rulings, and that any law or congressional act or constitutional amendment in effect at this time, which Marco Rubio may point to (past or present) to try and claim eligibility, that said law, court ruling, or constitutional amendment, can only make him a “Citizen” of the United States at birth and not a constitutional Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States at birth. Adjectives mean something;

Therefore, be it declared by the undersigned;

That Marco Rubio is NOT a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States and is NOT constitutionally eligible to be President or Vice-President.

 

SIGN THE PETITION

First Name: ____________________    Last Name: ____________________________

City: ___________________ State: _____  ZIP: _______   Date: _____________

Are More Pages Attached With More Signatures? YES [ ]     NO [ ]

If [YES] Checked Fill In Number of Pages of Signatures Attached: [   ]

# # # #

For additional information about the history of the founders and framers selection of the term “natural born Citizen” for inclusion in the presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court legal case law re who is a “natural born Citizen”, and thus further detailing why Marco Rubio is NOT a “natural born Citizen”, read the information at the following websites: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html and   https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/senator-marco-rubios-lack-of-natural-born-citizenship-update-27-may-2011-see-pdf-copy-of-the-sep-1975-petition-for-naturalization-for-mario-rubio-father-of-senator-marco-rubio-who-was-born-in-may/     cfk:09Feb2016-Ver-7

Download and Print a Copy of the Above Petition at the Following Link. Sign Copies and Mail Them to Newspaper Editors, National Media Persons, and Your Elected Officials. Let Them Hear From You! Spread the Word:  http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/petition-marcorubionotnaturalborncitizen.pdf

CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Marco Rubio Fails Three Legged Stool Test for "natural born Citizen". Click on Image for Details.
Marco Rubio Fails Three Legged Stool Test for “natural born Citizen”. His Parents Not U.S. Citizens. Click on Image for Details.

P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.
P.P.P.S. Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to U.S. Constitutional standards. Read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ Also read the “Three Legged Stool Test” for Natural Born Citizen https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

%d bloggers like this: