The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.
Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties.
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, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power 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.
What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States - just as is required to become a naturalized citizen.
In other words, it would be preposterous to consider under the meaning given to "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that a French subject visiting the United States was not a subject of France, but a complete subject of the United States while within the limits of the nation without first consenting to expatriation.
Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent.
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, "The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government." There is no way in the world anyone can claim "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a "Double allegiance" between separate nations.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties.
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, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power 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.
What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States - just as is required to become a naturalized citizen.
In other words, it would be preposterous to consider under the meaning given to "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that a French subject visiting the United States was not a subject of France, but a complete subject of the United States while within the limits of the nation without first consenting to expatriation.
Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent.
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, "The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government." There is no way in the world anyone can claim "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a "Double allegiance" between separate nations.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
No comments:
Post a Comment