Liberal judges and incompetent lawyers are so programmed to believe ‘born in the United State’ is constitutional law describing Birthright Citizenship that they are accusing Trump attorneys and Attorneys General of malpractice.

One judge has suggested sanctions in the form of fines and disbarment.

Trump’s attack on Birthright Citizenship (the courts lacking diligent research of law and history) has been accused of being racist against foreigners and the Chinese!

In my last blog I referenced a Yale Law Journal article that broke nationality law into two classes, one being statutory or constitutional by the legislature) and the other determined by the judiciary, the courts.

Birthright Citizenship was created by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case (1898). However, it was in direct disagreement with a previous case, Elk vs Wilkins (1885), that correctly interpreted the 14th Amendment of the constitution.¹

Wong Kim Ark was a disgraceful exhibition of judicial hubris, ignoring both precedent of the court and the constitution. It overstepped its constitutional jurisdiction by adding to laws the constitution itself (ArtISec8) gave plenary power of to the legislature. In other words, the Wong Kim Ark court unlawfully abrogated power reserved to the legislature.

Sophists of the court and at the bar declare that our British heritage under common law dictates our own laws. Not true. In fact, there are specific court cases from the 1800’s that deny reliance on common law as the United States was separated and divorced from the English monarch. English common law and terms of art could be incorporated, but only through direct legislated act codifying those laws into state statutes.

The 1772 British Nationality Act and the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 both rely solely on ‘jus sanguinis,’ and not at all on ‘jus soli.’ Children of citizens and subjects born outside national jurisdiction and dominion had the nationality of the father/parents.

Jus Soli, or ‘right of soil’ is NOT in the law but an ancient rule from feudal times, the ‘jus feudale.‘²

There is only one reason and one reason only that the 14th Amendment has the ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ clause, and that is because freed black slaves were stateless and therefore had no nationality to confer to their children by ‘blood.’ So, lacking ‘foreign subjection’ and not ‘under the jurisdiction thereof,’ being born on U.S. soil was the last resort to a difficult situation.

ARE TRUMP’S LAWYERS RACIST?

At the time of the creation of Birthright Citizenship (1898), the Chinese were allowed to travel back and forth the 6500 miles from China to the U.S. and back, but the Chinese Emperor forbade his subjects from declaring allegiance to the United States. It was he who denied them citizenship in a treaty with the United States. Even today, the CCP does not recognize U.S. citizenship of full-blooded Chinese, declaring China to be their first allegiance.

In addition, it is not racist because both the Chinese and Mormons were denied citizenship because of polygamy. Utah was denied admission to the Union unless they abandoned polygamy. And the ban on polygamy still exists in modern U.S. nationality act.

Here is another example. One of the greatest treatises recognized, as natural law, the inheritance of leigance from the father, regardless of place of birth. ‘The Law of Nations’ by Emmerich de Vattel. (1785) declare that the native, or ‘indigenes,’ were children of those born of citizens of that country.

“Les naturels, ou indigénes, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens.”

“The natural, or indigenous, are those who were born in the country, from citizen parents.”

This was an essential law during England’s colonial empire and so codified in their 1772 Nationality Act.

1. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
   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 ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 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.*** 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. (p. 111) 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 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992. (p. 103) ↩︎
2. Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883) “Now, upon what ground can allegiances in such cases be claimed? If natural allegiance or allegiance by birth, does not depend upon boundaries or place, as Calvin’s case asserts [1608 case involving a Scotsman’s allegiance after the 1603 ascension of the British monarch], upon what does it depend? There can be but one answer to the question. It is impossible to suggest any other ground for the obligation than that of parentage. It must, I apprehend, be transmitted from the parents to the child, or it could not exist.” ↩︎