Soon, the Trump administration will argue the unconstitutionality of Birthright Citizenship before the U.S. Supreme Court.
They will rely on the original intent of the 14th Amendment, and the misinterpretation and violation of the amendment by the 1898 Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.
The following should just about make you an expert in how a court’s interference taking jurisdiction over a ‘case in law’ can result in violating the law. This usually happens when activists, or a popular movement, asserts political force on the courts when they can’t achieve their goals through the legislature.
Common Law versus Natural Law
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Back in 1866 and 1868, two laws were enacted. The 1866 Act guaranteed citizenship at birth to children of parents ‘not subject to any foreign power.’
That was clear, simple, succinct. If the parents were aliens residing in the United States, their children were not U.S. but the foreign citizenship of the alien parents.
This is Natural Law, the law of Jus Sanguinis, recognizing the sovereign nature of parents over their children. Keep in mind that in the United States, more than any other country, we are not subjects but ‘sovereign citizens.’
The 14th Amendment took this 1866 Act and made it inviolable as part of the U.S. constitution. The purpose of both laws was to undo the stateless condition of freed slaves.
It applied to no other conditions except recognizing ‘Indians not taxed’ as being the same as having foreign sovereignty, versus ‘Indians taxed’ being under U.S. jurisdiction.
Then comes Wong Kim Ark in 1898, blurring the image. This case draws upon English common law from lower courts, from English cases (ignoring British Nationality Law itself) to intercede as judges to decide when a child of aliens could be guaranteed U.S. citizenship.
The court suggested that, although English common law had no power of precedent or stare decisis, they would apply that law merely because of shared language and principles. This was in complete disregard of the fact that even English statute (not court-generated common law, jus feudalis) actually followed the rules of natural law as similarly followed in the 1866 Act and 1868 Amendment.
The mental process to create this new interpretation of the 14th Amendment and ‘jurisdiction’ is verbose, murky, and lines are blurred, logic stretched. These judges had a preconceived outcome, and they attacked Nature until a Monster of a law was the result.
In Wong Kim Ark, ‘under the jurisdiction’ is interpreted to give any person on U.S. soil all constitutional rights of due process, thus extending the shade of the umbrella of the 14th Amendment beyond its former circumference. [I pulled some quotes from the 1898 case for you to read. It isn’t easy to plow through, but you might get an idea of the process judges and jurists use to muddy up the law and reform it to their own purposes. See the Addendum at the end of this blog post.]
We are arguing this today: Do illegal aliens, or even aliens with lawful residence, have full due process and protections under the constitution? The short answer is, ‘No.’ Why? Because the rights of the illegal alien were rendered null and void by their unlawful entry, and the rights of aliens residing legally lose their residency rights immediately upon discovery they have violated rules permitting their entry and stay. There are special administrative courts to apply immigration and nationality law.
And that is one reason Birthright Citizenship is so important to the liberals; if children to lawfully residing aliens are born as citizens, deportation is frowned upon as it ‘breaks up the family.’ Muslim immigrants who violated INA statute by practicing polygamy secretly under Sharia law have avoided deportation in this way.
Violating the rules of temporary lawful residence is the case of the Columbia University Hamas advocate. He lost his student visa. The case of the El Salvador MS13 gang member residing in Maryland was instantaneous, his violation requiring immediate deportation. The only reason he was able to remain so long and escape prosecution for criminal associations and activity is because activist authorities in so-called sanctuary states and cities were loath to report the criminal (on entry and in criminal acts upon others) to ICE for deportation.
Think of it this way–That El Salvador criminal had greater rights–there was no due process invoked. If a U.S. citizen was caught with drugs, gang money, and humans being trafficked, they would be arrested, not let go.
CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH
Birthright citizenship for children of aliens is a myth, a violation of natural law. The state, under liberal court authorities, decided to extend citizenship to children of foreign parents in violation of natural law. The state exerting jus solis, or law of the soil, conferred citizenship as if the state were the child’s natural parents.
CONFLICT OF LAW
The extending of citizenship by the court, by common law, is in violation of the higher natural law (and by misinterpreting the constitution). It is not only a violation of existing law, but a corruption of law as it creates two citizenships. One, the child has been conferred citizenship by natural law of the blood, jus sanguinis; but this act of the state, the court, creates a second citizenship incompatible and impossible to mix with the first.
Dual or Hybrid citizenship was not accepted by the law, but a freak creation. New statutes had to be created to sort out the conflict. In a few cases, dual nationality was permitted, but only under special Treaties between specific countries.
Maryland Democrats are seeking the return of the El Salvador gang member so they can offer him due process. And they want this because they then set precedent to require due process for ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS, especially the millions Biden and Mayorkas ushered into the United States in a Cloward-Piven move to overwhelm the immigration, social security, and election systems.
ADDENDUM
the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power.”
And that view was supported by reference to the debates in the Senate upon that act, and to the ineffectual veto thereof by President Johnson in which he said:
“By the first section of the bill, 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. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is, by the bill, made a citizen of the United States.”
112 U.S. 1114.
The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,” and the converse of the words “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word “jurisdiction” in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth
Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.
By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,” were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, “not subject to any foreign power,” were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the Civil Rights Act, “not subject to any foreign power,” gave way, in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to the affirmative words, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed — “born in the United States,” “naturalized in the United States,” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States. But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.
The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, in well considered opinions of the executive departments of the Government since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
In 1869, Attorney General Hoar gave to Mr. Fish, the Secretary of State, an opinion that children born and domiciled abroad whose fathers were native-born citizens of the United States and had at some time resided therein were, under the .statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, citizens of the United States, and
“entitled to all the privileges of citizenship which it is in the power of the United States Government to confer. Within the sovereignty and jurisdiction of this nation, they are undoubtedly entitled to all the privileges of citizens. . . . But,”
the Attorney General added,
“while the United States may, by law, fix or declare the conditions constituting citizens of the country within its own territorial jurisdiction, and may confer the rights of American citizens everywhere upon persons who are not rightfully subject to the authority of any foreign country or government, it is clear that the United States cannot, by undertaking to confer the rights of citizenship upon the subjects of a foreign nation who have not come within our territory, interfere with the just rights of such nation to the government and control of its own subjects. If, therefore, by the laws of the country of their birth, children of American citizens born in that country are subjects of its government, I do not think that it is competent to the United States, by any legislation, to interfere with that relation or, by undertaking to extend to them the rights of citizens of this country, to interfere with the allegiance which they may owe to the country of their birth while they continue within its territory, or to change the relation to other foreign nations which, by reason of their place of birth, may at any time exist. The rule of the common law I understand to be that a person ‘born in a strange country, under the obedience of a strange prince or country, is an alien’ (Co.Lit. 128b), and that every person owes allegiance to the country of his birth.”
13 Opinions of Attorneys General 89-91.
Paralegalnm's Blog 
Leave a comment