14th Amendment
Ted Cruz Tulsi Gabbard Nikki Haley Kamala Harris Bobby Jindal Marco Rubio Andrew Yang
The 14th Amendment is often referred to as the "Birthright Citizenship" law after the Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898. To give citizenship to foreigners was not the intent of the 14th as will be shown below.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime. The amendment was ratified by the required number of states on December 6, 1865. On December 18, 1865, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed its adoption.
Once the Thirteenth was ratified and the slaves were now free, they realized that they had not given the freed slaves any avenue of citizenship. They were a people without a country.
History tells us the first undertaking on the issue of citizenship for the newly freed slaves was to use the Constitutional authority given Congress in its Naturalization powers. This was discussed at length. Though they feared to use a simple naturalization law, some of the States may ignore it. They also feared that a future Congress could come in behind them and repeal any Naturalization law giving the newly freed slaves citizenship. So they decided to use the Amendment process as they had just used in the 13th, to guarantee it would not be reversed as they feared. The Amendment was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States.
So the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and the State wherein they reside." The Article tells us that 14th citizens and naturalized citizens are of the same citizen class. Not eligible to be POTUS. Just like the words natural born cannot be removed from Article II Sec. I Cls. 5, they cannot be added to the 14th Amendment either.
The 14th was just an extension of existing law. In 1866, two years before the 14th Amendment, by U.S. statute Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised defined who is a citizen:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power … are declared to be citizens of the United States”
Professor Karlan was the Star Witness for the House Democrats in the Trump impeachment: in the video she explains that just plain citizens, like the 14th makes one, cannot be President.
1866, John A Bingham:
John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
The 1866 Congressional debates confirm that the two citizenship clauses — the one in the 14th Amendment, and the one in the 1866 Civil Rights Act — were intended to have the same meaning and effect. During those debates, the primary framers of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause,
Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that “jurisdiction”, as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole and complete U.S. jurisdiction, i.e., not subject to any foreign power.
As you can see by the language used in the 14th it was intended to be a Constitutional Naturalization Process as it is stated that the newly freed slave`s citizenship, is the same, is equal, to that of a Naturalized Citizen.
Citizenship gained by an act of Congress is a naturalized type of citizenship. This was referred to as the Citizenship Clause or the Naturalization Clause of the 14th at that time. No difference in any way except in Wong Kim Ark. Justice gray really screwed up the 14th.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"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."
Senator Howard`s intention of the 14th was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
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. They didn`t make this law for "Birthright Citizenship" or "Anchor Babies".
Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to further explain to us the intent of the Amendment, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase into the 14th: Known as the Citizenship Clause, it is contained in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause conferred U.S. and state citizenship at birth to all individuals born in the United States. [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 actual corruption of the 14th Amendment came about 30 years after the 14th Amendment’s ratification, by the methodical corruption of the Gray court in United States vs Wong Kim Ark, in which Justice Horace Gray changed the application of “jurisdiction” from being the complete political jurisdiction, which has bearing on citizenship and effects the children of Ambassadors, Indians “not taxed” and aliens equally, to now being legal jurisdiction, which has no relevance to citizenship whatsoever. In so doing, Justice Gray contradicted his own preceding decision from Elk vs Wilkins which recognized that political jurisdiction, and fabricated our new problem of anchor babies, which is blatantly legislating from the bench, and being done in contradiction to the explicit intent of Congress.
With the signing of the 14th Amendment and the misinterpretation by Gray in Wong Kim Ark, they created a new kind of Native Born Citizen. Prior to the 14th a Native born and Natural born meant the same thing. After WKA in 1898, the differences being one type of native born is born to two citizen parents making them a Natural Born Native born Citizen and the other one is born to foreigners, a simple Native born citizen by an act of Congress.
Prior to the Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898, this is the rule of law on foregners giving birth on US soil:
The Supreme Court in Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth. The same as Vattel states. The same as Senator Trumbull states.
The 14th is the law that was misinterpreted in Wong Kim Ark in 1898 to allow for "Birthright Citizenship of the children of foreigners".
In the Wong Kim Ark case, Justice Horace Gray gives an inaccurate representation of “natural born subject”, while trying to use English Common law and Blackstone, while also ignoring the writings of the authors of the 14th, which he identifies as resulting from birth on any of the Kingdom’s soil, and indicates the source of this claim to be Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries. However in making this claim, Gray only cherry-picks Blackstone’s representation in that same 1765 Commentaries, given that Blackstone identifies the terms of natural born subject to be progressively expanding, even to include those born overseas, and done by Crown dictate, therefore only a statutory definition, even referencing the British statutes purely to increase the Crowns tax revenue.
In fact only 30 years prior to Blackstone’s Commentaries, in 1736, British jurist Matthew Bacon recognized the original terms of “natural born subject” to be the same as Vattels:
“All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions”
(Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, 1736, Vol 1, pg 77)
Not only does this indicate that the place of birth must be within the “dominion” (British territory) itself, but it also indicates that the parents must be under the “actual obedience” of the King. The same requirements with Vattel exactly. This emphasis on “actual obedience” is in direct conflict with Justice Gray’s own presumed obedience of Law in Gray’s Wong Kim Ark discussion of the 14th Amendment citizenship.
Presumed obedience resulting from mere temporary happenstance of giving birth within the territory does not equate to the obligation of actual obedience of being a citizen, or subject, not even under British feudal doctrine. Nowhere in Wong did they equate the citizenship of Wong with being natural born. This again is in line with Vattel.
As you can see there should have never been a ruling that allows birthright citizenship to happen. After reading the entire WKA ruling many times now, at no time did they go back and look at what Senator Trumbull, Senator Howard or Rep. Bingham had to say on the type of citizenship this law gives anyone. It was made strictly for the freed slaves and no one else. No where in the discussions on the 14th is Natural Born Citizen mentioned. They are simply another kind of naturalized citizen though Gray says they are not naturalized showing his lack of knowledge on the intent of the 14th.
John Armor Bingham (January 21, 1815 – March 19, 1900) was also one of the principal framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, he was an American Republican congressman from the U.S. state of Ohio, judge advocate in the trial of the Abraham Lincoln assassination and a prosecutor in the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson.
In 1866, during 14th Amendment House debates, Ohio Representative John Bingham, stated: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
Schneider V. Rusk (1964):
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
Unfortunately, this law has been misinterpreted in the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the 14th was originally only for granting citizenship to recently freed African slaves, not foreigners. In fact, it didn’t even include Native Americans. This is the misinterpreted law that gives us "Anchor Babies".
Prior to Wong Kim Ark in 1898, this was the law of the land with respect to the 14th. The Supreme Court in Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth.
Even if Wong is the deciding ruling on citizenship, despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” on anyone in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. Bingham explains above the difference between a 14th Amendment Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen.
And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “Natural Born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “Natural Born Citizen”.
Constitutionally, only those born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. Const.Amdt. XIV. The power to fix and determine the rules of naturalization is vested in Congress. Const.Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 4. Since all persons born outside of the United States, are "foreigners,"[10] and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the statutes, such as § 1993 and 8 U.S.C.A. § 601, derive their validity from the naturalization power of the Congress. Elk v. Wilkins, 1884, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 5 S. Ct. 41, 28 L. Ed. 643; Wong Kim Ark v. U. S., 1898, 169 U.S. 649, 702, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890.
In Zimmer v. Acheson which was decided in the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit demonstrates that statutory citizenship is, in fact, a form of “naturalized” citizenship. Persons in whom citizenship is vested by such statutes are naturalized citizens and not native-born citizens. Zimmer v. Acheson, 10 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 209, 211; Wong Kim Ark v. U. S., supra.
Clearly, this confirms the 14th is a Naturalization process when born of foreign parents.
To sum this up, a natural born citizen is not a product of any statutory law, and the entire array of U.S. naturalization laws only apply to “citizen” and “citizenship”, and in no way have any relevance to the terms of natural born citizen.
Ted Cruz Tulsi Gabbard Nikki Haley Kamala Harris Bobby Jindal Marco Rubio Andrew Wang