Time again to post the long legal history on this and/or refresh everyone's memory...
The children of
illegal aliens born in the U.S. were never intended to have birthright citizenship. This is how we know...
1) The 14th Amendment and it's original intent:
Senator Trumbull:
"The 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."
Congressional Record:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00152893.tif
Trumbull's role in drafting and introducing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100304...about/history/
Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.
2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted
after the 14th Amendment, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States
and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
Revised Statutes of the United States, Passed at the First Session of the ... - United States
3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was
not born a U.S. citizen because he was
subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was
not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth '
subject to a foreign power,' therefore
not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Both cases cited in this digest:
A Digest of the International Law of the United States: Taken from Documents ... - Google Books
4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were
NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did
NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:
WKA decision:
"The
evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to
the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination
the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China,
but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
The parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
For political reasons, the 14th Amendment has been bastardized since then, but such bastardization was never an actual Constitutional Amendment.
5) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which had to be enacted because even when Native Americans were born in the U.S., they were
not U.S. citizens. Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power (Indian Nations). Note that the 1924 date of this Act is significantly later than both the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
I realize that's a lot of historical information to digest. But sadly, our public education system is
such a joke that very few people are aware of the history surrounding the 14th Amendment and how subsequent births to parents of various nationalities were treated in the U.S. up until "policy" (
not the Constitution or the law) very recently changed.
There has
never been any law passed, similar to the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, that gives birthright citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. but subject to a foreign power.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and I am still 
I will keep asking my elected officially to explain this to me.
