![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This section in the article is highly unsatisfactory in that it gives more weight to the dissenting opinion in US v Wong than it does to the majority opinion. It leaves the impression that the dissenting opinion, that there is a question as to whether the children of transient aliens are themselves natural born citizens, was not "explicitly" contradicted by the majority and therefore remains an open question.
The fact of the matter is that the Wong majority decision gave citations of cases that do explicitly contradict the minority. It seems unreasonable that a long quote supporting the minority opinion in Wong be included and none contradicting it is given.
This is just some more of that Obama eligibility junk soiling the Wikipedia.
I'll leave this comment here for a while, and then go rewrite the section to be historically accurate. Kevin ( talk) 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly concur with Kevin's posting of over two years ago. This Article is about the 14th Amendment, and not the Article involving eligibilty for the Presidency, which involves "natural born citizen[s]". Natural born citizen has its own page, and this one should point to that. Moreover, what the article says here is that something in Wong Kim Ark, the leading Supreme Court case on citizenship, is dicta, based on what the State Department Foreign Service Manual says. This is absurd, the Foreign Service Manual hasn't the force of law, much less the power to interpret Supreme Court decisions. Finally, one doesn't interpret language in the Constitution with simple references to Webster's, Oxford, or Black's Law Dictionary. Since Kevin's comment has been here more than two years, I will delete the text in this section, leaving only the link to the Wikipedia article for Natural Born Citizen. Vitacura6256 ( talk) 01:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit, which added the editorial interpretation "[state]" into the middle of a direct quote. Aside from WP:QUOTE considerations, I think (as a non-lawyer) that this is just plain wrong. The quoted source cited this case for support, and it seems clear to me from that decision ("Held: The Alaska dividend distribution plan violates the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 58-65. ...") that the quote is saying that federal citizenship does not expressly equate state citizenship rights with residence. I may be wrong, and I invite correction from others more qualified in this area than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
“ | What is at issue in this case, then, is this third aspect of the right to travel-the right of the newly arrived citizen to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same State. [Emphasis added.] -- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, at 502 (1999). | ” |
I've moved the following here from the Birthright citizenship section of the article:
Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:
- Children born to foreign diplomats
- Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
- Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (These were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.)
- Children born to foreigners who do not have a permanent domicile and residence (i.e. legal residence) in the United States and are not carrying on business in the United States (as per United States v. Wong Kim Ark)
All other persons born in the United States were citizens.
This seems to be making an unsupported editorial assertion similar to the following WRT at least some of these categories of persons -- particularly the final category:
Document A says that Cocker Spaniels and Labradors are dogs. Therefore, according to Document A, Terriers are not dogs.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm clarifying that restrictions on the ability of the US government to strip anyone of citizenship apply only to citizenship based on the 14th Amendment, and not jure sanguinis citizenship for children of Americans born abroad, which is established only by statute. Gmalcolms ( talk) 03:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This section is grossly misleading. It says expatriation must be accompanied by an intent to relinquish "American Citizenship", while the cited case for footnote (26) deals with "US citizenship" of Afroyim. This is misleading in that the Citizenship being renunciated is "US citizenship" which is categorically NOT "American citizenship". ALL "US citizens" hold dual citizenship. They are "citizens of the United States", a democracy (Article I section 8 Clause 17, United States Attorney Manual 664, USC Title 18 section 7 (3)) as well as being "American Citizens". (See Blacks Law dictionary 5th/6th Add. "Dual Citizenship")
The matter is quite clear when you actually read the "act" passed July 27, 1868. 3 weeks to the day after the 14th was "supposedly" ratified. It is the saving clause and was intended to allow freed slaves become American Citizens and free themselves of "federal subject" status. The "act" is contained in 15 Statute at large 249. Peace 98.206.222.240 ( talk) 02:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the inclusion of Sen. Cowan from Pennsylvania among those who supported Sen. Howard's amendment since there is no evidence from the records of the debate preserved in the Congressional Globe that he did so. In fact, his statements seem to indicate the opposite, namely, he opposed the amendment because he was opposed to granting citizenship, solely because they were born in the United States, to the children of, for example, Chinese and Gypsies. Based on his voting, one can also see that Sen. Cowan preferred Doolittle's alternative proposal, of preserving the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, to that of the amendment proposed by Sen. Howard. Gmalcolms ( talk) 05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I've done a major rewrite of this section, to accurately reflect the content of the debate, as far as it concerned who qualified to be a citizen under the Amendment. In particular, I've removed the heavy, yet subtle, nativist POV of the earlier version by adding many more quotes with context, without removing the earlier ones. An abbreviated version of this will need to be substituted into the same part of the pages on the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship, and perhaps jus soli citizenship. Gmalcolms ( talk) 07:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not at all clear to me that the existing section on "Natural-born citizens" belongs in this article. This article is not about the natural-born-citizen clause; it is about the portion of the 14th Amendment dealing with citizenship. If natural-born citizens are to be discussed here at all, it should only be in the context of whether anything about the Citizenship Clause is relevant (as confirmed via reliable sources) to the definition of a natural-born citizen, or to the interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. — Rich wales 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I am troubled by these recent edits, which appear to me to give undue weight to the necessity of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US as a precondition for being a citizen. That is, these edits make the text sound like the exceptions to jurisdiction may be as important as (or even more important than) the the general principle that birth in the US confers automatic citizenship. What do others think? — Rich wales 17:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Everyone please take note that I have raised a question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the appropriateness of this New York Times article as a reliable source for the following statement about the Fourteenth Amendment: "There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment." I believe this reference is acceptable as a source, but an IP editor has deleted it twice (see here and here), over my objection, stating in an edit summary that "these sources are editorials and, therefore, do not pass the requirements of a reliable source regardless of any other feature" — an interpretation of WP:NEWSORG which I am not comfortable with in this situation. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this reversion, the term "Naturalization Clause" almost always refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. See, for example, these sources:
The library web page does not reflect common usage. If anyone would like further reliable sources to back this up, just ask. Incidentally, for a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse, and I think it definitely improves the Wikipedia article to use proper legal terminology. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 is often called the "Naturalization Clause" despite what the library web page says, and the Citizenship Clause rarely if ever goes by that name despite what the library web page says. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've enabled pending changes protection on this article. Any edits by a new editor (or someone editing under their IP address without using an account) will not appear to the general readership of Wikipedia until/unless an administrator (or other editor who has been granted the " reviewer" right) approves the edit.
There have been multiple attempts to add to the article a quotation by Jacob M. Howard (a Senator from Michigan, and the original author of the Citizenship Clause). I imagine the user or users in question may feel there is an attempt at censorship going on here; that is not true, and I'm going to try to explain why.
The Howard quotation is accurate to the best of my knowledge — but the way it is being inserted into the article's text is problematic. The source being provided for this quote (14thamendment.us) appears to be a birther blog site, and it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a
reliable source. And the claim that "This quote shows there was no intent to include illegal aliens or foreigners in this amendment" is unsourced
original research — the new editor who inserted this claim along with the quote was trying to interpret the meaning or significance of the quote on his own, something we aren't allowed to do. Instead of trying to make a point by including and explaining material directly from a
primary source, we need to report on the way the primary source material (the Sen. Howard quote) is discussed and interpreted in
secondary sources, such as in legal articles published in recognized journals, and/or in holdings by the US Supreme Court or other courts. —
Rich
wales (no relation to Jimbo)
18:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
source:
quote:
Have we cited...
Here yet?
The quote above attributed to Bingham bears resemblance to Lyman Trumbull in the cited "1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893":
I tried http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 and then changing 2893 to 1291 in the "turn to image" field but it will only bring me as early as 2881.
Does anyone know why that is? I'd like to be able to verify and cite the Bingham quote that Hewitt mentions if it's true. Ranze ( talk) 23:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC):Try http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=052/llcg052.db&recNum=348 Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Citizenship Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not allowing any quotes from the men who wrote the 14th Amendment, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's own rules ! Shame on Wikipedia ! Jurisdiction thereof means not subjects of foreign powers, we have many such quotes, and Wikipedia censors them ! 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 18:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Refererence 17 to a supposed statement by the President is a dead link and should be removed. References 15 and 16 do not support the sentence at all. See reference 22 where Trumball says exactly the opposite, that Jurisdiction thereof means not subjects of foreign powers. Also, the Citizen Act explicitly excludes subjects of foreign powers, which contradicts the whole sentence. 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 03:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
illegal aliens are subjects of foreign powers, no matter how you cut it. Their anchor babies are therefore not US Citizens. 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 13:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Seconding what Wtmitchell just said. And similarly, as far as Mexico is concerned, Mexicans who move to the US are still citizens of Mexico, regardless of whether US law considers them to have come legally or not. I'm really confused now, 47.201.182.47, because at first I thought you were arguing that the Citizenship Clause didn't confer US citizenship on the children of parents who were themselves still citizens / subjects of their old countries and not yet US citizens. That was basically the government's failed argument in the Wong Kim Ark case — that citizenship was to be inherited from one's father via jus sanguinis, and not based on place of birth. There are more than ample references in the Senate debate over the Citizenship Clause to show that this was not the position most of them were taking; see, e.g., Trumbull's comments in footnote 15, or Conness' comments in footnote 19, or Cowan's contrary comments in footnote 20. I can't find anything in the debate record to suggest that the Senators were drawing any sort of distinction here based on whether a child's parents were "legally" in the US or not. If there is some such statement, please specify exactly who said it and where his comments can be found. And for the moment, please don't cite what SCOTUS may have said or implied 30 years later about the legal status of Wong Kim Ark's parents; if what you say is really what the framers of the Citizenship Clause meant, it ought to be possible to find it somewhere in the Senators' own words recorded in 1866. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
This quote of Trumball should be explictly in the Wikipedia article, in italics, and not just simply buried in a little footnote: "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 03:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Citizenship_Clause#Birthright_citizenship:
Even though the United States broke off from England and inherited some laws from it, per France in the American Revolutionary War it seem wrong to assume that the United States would necessarily use English interpretation over French or other European interpretations. Especially since the French Revolution followed (1789-1799) soon after the ARW (1775 to 1783).
Emer_de_Vattel#English_editions discusses how Law of Nations had been available in English since 1760 and how Ben Franklin in 1775 thanked Dumas for sending him 3 copies of it in French. Franklin:
The full letter can be found at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0172
This despite Vattel being an international lawyer from Sweden (not England).
Vattel wrote in Section 212:
There is strangely no mention of Vattel or LON despite Franklin's mentioning his consulting it. Why is this?
It's not like no sources have talked about Vattel's influence:
The founders wanted to join international society. This Swiss diplomat taught them how.
Vattel mentions in https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/vattel-the-law-of-nations-lf-ed#lfVattel_label_1646 :
Vattel writes this in a paragraph opening with "may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen" and says "this is called naturalization". So Vattel does not acknowledge children born to foreigners as natural-born citizens, but rather, foreigners who are naturalized at birth. WakandaQT ( talk) 04:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This section in the article is highly unsatisfactory in that it gives more weight to the dissenting opinion in US v Wong than it does to the majority opinion. It leaves the impression that the dissenting opinion, that there is a question as to whether the children of transient aliens are themselves natural born citizens, was not "explicitly" contradicted by the majority and therefore remains an open question.
The fact of the matter is that the Wong majority decision gave citations of cases that do explicitly contradict the minority. It seems unreasonable that a long quote supporting the minority opinion in Wong be included and none contradicting it is given.
This is just some more of that Obama eligibility junk soiling the Wikipedia.
I'll leave this comment here for a while, and then go rewrite the section to be historically accurate. Kevin ( talk) 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly concur with Kevin's posting of over two years ago. This Article is about the 14th Amendment, and not the Article involving eligibilty for the Presidency, which involves "natural born citizen[s]". Natural born citizen has its own page, and this one should point to that. Moreover, what the article says here is that something in Wong Kim Ark, the leading Supreme Court case on citizenship, is dicta, based on what the State Department Foreign Service Manual says. This is absurd, the Foreign Service Manual hasn't the force of law, much less the power to interpret Supreme Court decisions. Finally, one doesn't interpret language in the Constitution with simple references to Webster's, Oxford, or Black's Law Dictionary. Since Kevin's comment has been here more than two years, I will delete the text in this section, leaving only the link to the Wikipedia article for Natural Born Citizen. Vitacura6256 ( talk) 01:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit, which added the editorial interpretation "[state]" into the middle of a direct quote. Aside from WP:QUOTE considerations, I think (as a non-lawyer) that this is just plain wrong. The quoted source cited this case for support, and it seems clear to me from that decision ("Held: The Alaska dividend distribution plan violates the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 58-65. ...") that the quote is saying that federal citizenship does not expressly equate state citizenship rights with residence. I may be wrong, and I invite correction from others more qualified in this area than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
“ | What is at issue in this case, then, is this third aspect of the right to travel-the right of the newly arrived citizen to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same State. [Emphasis added.] -- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, at 502 (1999). | ” |
I've moved the following here from the Birthright citizenship section of the article:
Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:
- Children born to foreign diplomats
- Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
- Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (These were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.)
- Children born to foreigners who do not have a permanent domicile and residence (i.e. legal residence) in the United States and are not carrying on business in the United States (as per United States v. Wong Kim Ark)
All other persons born in the United States were citizens.
This seems to be making an unsupported editorial assertion similar to the following WRT at least some of these categories of persons -- particularly the final category:
Document A says that Cocker Spaniels and Labradors are dogs. Therefore, according to Document A, Terriers are not dogs.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm clarifying that restrictions on the ability of the US government to strip anyone of citizenship apply only to citizenship based on the 14th Amendment, and not jure sanguinis citizenship for children of Americans born abroad, which is established only by statute. Gmalcolms ( talk) 03:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This section is grossly misleading. It says expatriation must be accompanied by an intent to relinquish "American Citizenship", while the cited case for footnote (26) deals with "US citizenship" of Afroyim. This is misleading in that the Citizenship being renunciated is "US citizenship" which is categorically NOT "American citizenship". ALL "US citizens" hold dual citizenship. They are "citizens of the United States", a democracy (Article I section 8 Clause 17, United States Attorney Manual 664, USC Title 18 section 7 (3)) as well as being "American Citizens". (See Blacks Law dictionary 5th/6th Add. "Dual Citizenship")
The matter is quite clear when you actually read the "act" passed July 27, 1868. 3 weeks to the day after the 14th was "supposedly" ratified. It is the saving clause and was intended to allow freed slaves become American Citizens and free themselves of "federal subject" status. The "act" is contained in 15 Statute at large 249. Peace 98.206.222.240 ( talk) 02:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the inclusion of Sen. Cowan from Pennsylvania among those who supported Sen. Howard's amendment since there is no evidence from the records of the debate preserved in the Congressional Globe that he did so. In fact, his statements seem to indicate the opposite, namely, he opposed the amendment because he was opposed to granting citizenship, solely because they were born in the United States, to the children of, for example, Chinese and Gypsies. Based on his voting, one can also see that Sen. Cowan preferred Doolittle's alternative proposal, of preserving the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, to that of the amendment proposed by Sen. Howard. Gmalcolms ( talk) 05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I've done a major rewrite of this section, to accurately reflect the content of the debate, as far as it concerned who qualified to be a citizen under the Amendment. In particular, I've removed the heavy, yet subtle, nativist POV of the earlier version by adding many more quotes with context, without removing the earlier ones. An abbreviated version of this will need to be substituted into the same part of the pages on the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship, and perhaps jus soli citizenship. Gmalcolms ( talk) 07:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not at all clear to me that the existing section on "Natural-born citizens" belongs in this article. This article is not about the natural-born-citizen clause; it is about the portion of the 14th Amendment dealing with citizenship. If natural-born citizens are to be discussed here at all, it should only be in the context of whether anything about the Citizenship Clause is relevant (as confirmed via reliable sources) to the definition of a natural-born citizen, or to the interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. — Rich wales 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I am troubled by these recent edits, which appear to me to give undue weight to the necessity of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US as a precondition for being a citizen. That is, these edits make the text sound like the exceptions to jurisdiction may be as important as (or even more important than) the the general principle that birth in the US confers automatic citizenship. What do others think? — Rich wales 17:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Everyone please take note that I have raised a question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the appropriateness of this New York Times article as a reliable source for the following statement about the Fourteenth Amendment: "There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment." I believe this reference is acceptable as a source, but an IP editor has deleted it twice (see here and here), over my objection, stating in an edit summary that "these sources are editorials and, therefore, do not pass the requirements of a reliable source regardless of any other feature" — an interpretation of WP:NEWSORG which I am not comfortable with in this situation. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this reversion, the term "Naturalization Clause" almost always refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. See, for example, these sources:
The library web page does not reflect common usage. If anyone would like further reliable sources to back this up, just ask. Incidentally, for a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse, and I think it definitely improves the Wikipedia article to use proper legal terminology. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 is often called the "Naturalization Clause" despite what the library web page says, and the Citizenship Clause rarely if ever goes by that name despite what the library web page says. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've enabled pending changes protection on this article. Any edits by a new editor (or someone editing under their IP address without using an account) will not appear to the general readership of Wikipedia until/unless an administrator (or other editor who has been granted the " reviewer" right) approves the edit.
There have been multiple attempts to add to the article a quotation by Jacob M. Howard (a Senator from Michigan, and the original author of the Citizenship Clause). I imagine the user or users in question may feel there is an attempt at censorship going on here; that is not true, and I'm going to try to explain why.
The Howard quotation is accurate to the best of my knowledge — but the way it is being inserted into the article's text is problematic. The source being provided for this quote (14thamendment.us) appears to be a birther blog site, and it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a
reliable source. And the claim that "This quote shows there was no intent to include illegal aliens or foreigners in this amendment" is unsourced
original research — the new editor who inserted this claim along with the quote was trying to interpret the meaning or significance of the quote on his own, something we aren't allowed to do. Instead of trying to make a point by including and explaining material directly from a
primary source, we need to report on the way the primary source material (the Sen. Howard quote) is discussed and interpreted in
secondary sources, such as in legal articles published in recognized journals, and/or in holdings by the US Supreme Court or other courts. —
Rich
wales (no relation to Jimbo)
18:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
source:
quote:
Have we cited...
Here yet?
The quote above attributed to Bingham bears resemblance to Lyman Trumbull in the cited "1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893":
I tried http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 and then changing 2893 to 1291 in the "turn to image" field but it will only bring me as early as 2881.
Does anyone know why that is? I'd like to be able to verify and cite the Bingham quote that Hewitt mentions if it's true. Ranze ( talk) 23:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC):Try http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=052/llcg052.db&recNum=348 Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Citizenship Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not allowing any quotes from the men who wrote the 14th Amendment, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's own rules ! Shame on Wikipedia ! Jurisdiction thereof means not subjects of foreign powers, we have many such quotes, and Wikipedia censors them ! 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 18:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Refererence 17 to a supposed statement by the President is a dead link and should be removed. References 15 and 16 do not support the sentence at all. See reference 22 where Trumball says exactly the opposite, that Jurisdiction thereof means not subjects of foreign powers. Also, the Citizen Act explicitly excludes subjects of foreign powers, which contradicts the whole sentence. 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 03:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
illegal aliens are subjects of foreign powers, no matter how you cut it. Their anchor babies are therefore not US Citizens. 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 13:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Seconding what Wtmitchell just said. And similarly, as far as Mexico is concerned, Mexicans who move to the US are still citizens of Mexico, regardless of whether US law considers them to have come legally or not. I'm really confused now, 47.201.182.47, because at first I thought you were arguing that the Citizenship Clause didn't confer US citizenship on the children of parents who were themselves still citizens / subjects of their old countries and not yet US citizens. That was basically the government's failed argument in the Wong Kim Ark case — that citizenship was to be inherited from one's father via jus sanguinis, and not based on place of birth. There are more than ample references in the Senate debate over the Citizenship Clause to show that this was not the position most of them were taking; see, e.g., Trumbull's comments in footnote 15, or Conness' comments in footnote 19, or Cowan's contrary comments in footnote 20. I can't find anything in the debate record to suggest that the Senators were drawing any sort of distinction here based on whether a child's parents were "legally" in the US or not. If there is some such statement, please specify exactly who said it and where his comments can be found. And for the moment, please don't cite what SCOTUS may have said or implied 30 years later about the legal status of Wong Kim Ark's parents; if what you say is really what the framers of the Citizenship Clause meant, it ought to be possible to find it somewhere in the Senators' own words recorded in 1866. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
This quote of Trumball should be explictly in the Wikipedia article, in italics, and not just simply buried in a little footnote: "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 03:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Citizenship_Clause#Birthright_citizenship:
Even though the United States broke off from England and inherited some laws from it, per France in the American Revolutionary War it seem wrong to assume that the United States would necessarily use English interpretation over French or other European interpretations. Especially since the French Revolution followed (1789-1799) soon after the ARW (1775 to 1783).
Emer_de_Vattel#English_editions discusses how Law of Nations had been available in English since 1760 and how Ben Franklin in 1775 thanked Dumas for sending him 3 copies of it in French. Franklin:
The full letter can be found at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0172
This despite Vattel being an international lawyer from Sweden (not England).
Vattel wrote in Section 212:
There is strangely no mention of Vattel or LON despite Franklin's mentioning his consulting it. Why is this?
It's not like no sources have talked about Vattel's influence:
The founders wanted to join international society. This Swiss diplomat taught them how.
Vattel mentions in https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/vattel-the-law-of-nations-lf-ed#lfVattel_label_1646 :
Vattel writes this in a paragraph opening with "may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen" and says "this is called naturalization". So Vattel does not acknowledge children born to foreigners as natural-born citizens, but rather, foreigners who are naturalized at birth. WakandaQT ( talk) 04:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)