In Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court got it right. It
ruled that John Elk, an Indian, was not a citizen,
because he was not born "subject to the jurisdiction"
of the United States, in the meaning intended by the
authors of the amendment; they ruled this way, despite
the clear fact that Elk was born in the United States
and was subject to its laws.
From the decision:
The question then is, whether an Indian, born a member
of one of the Indian tribes within the United States,
is, merely by reason of his birth within the United
States, and of his afterwards voluntarily separating
himself from his tribe and taking up his residence
among white citizens, a citizen of the United States,
within the meaning of the first section of the
fourteenth amendment of the constitution.
...
The main object of the opening sentence of the
fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon
which there had been a difference of opinion throughout
the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of
free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to
put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black,
and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized
in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any
alien power, should be citizens of the United States
and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House
Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100
U. S. 303, 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship,
and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The
persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born
or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.' ***The evident meaning of these
last words is, not merely subject in some respect or
degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but
completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and
owing them direct and immediate allegiance.***
[emphasis added] And the words relate to the time of
birth in the one case, as they do to the time of
naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of
birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being
naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings
under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by
the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is
acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of
the United States, members of, and owing immediate
allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien
though dependent power,) although in a geographical
sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in
the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of
the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects
of any foreign government born within the domain of
that government, or the children born within the United
States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of
foreign nations.
It is also worthy of remark that the language used,
about the same time, by the very congress which framed
the fourteenth amendment, in the first section of the
civil rights act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall
be citizens of the United States, is 'all persons born
in the United States, and not subject to any foreign
power, excluding Indians not taxed.' 14 St. 27; Rev.
St. § 1992. Such Indians, then, not being citizens by
birth, can only become citizens in the second way
mentioned in the fourteenth amendment, by being
'naturalized in the United States,' by or under some
treaty or statute.
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/USSCT_Cases/ELK_V_WILKINS_1884.HTM
No torture of the word "jurisdiction" can make it mean
what the pro-illegal-immigrant gangsters want it to
mean. The U.S.-born offspring of aliens, particularly
illegal aliens, cannot logically be considered
citizens. *NO* U.S.-born offspring of any sort of
alien can logically be considered to be citizens, based
on the clearly understood meaning of "jurisdiction" in
the citizenship, viz., "completely subject to their
political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and
immediate allegiance." The U.S.-born offspring of
aliens owe their allegiance to wherever their parents
owe allegiance. There is no "swearing" or oath-taking
involved. The parents owe their allegiance to foreign
countries and governments, and necessarily so do their
U.S.-born offspring. |