Obviously, though, incorrect practice has created much of the dual citizenship that exists today. Support for this position can be found in George Collins’ outstanding appellants brief (arguing for the US) in WKA—wherein he asserts:
[B]ecause the error has become almost universal and our people through ignorance have established a course of conduct under the authority of…’law taken for granted,’ that therefore the law has been superseded and nullified …[T]he injury to our country arising from the admission to citizenship of every person born on the soil, irrespective of his parentage, would be far greater and extensively more disastrous than the consequences apprehended from an enforcement of the law… http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
Of course the State Department has to deal with dual citizenship, because it exists, not because it is granted anywhere in our laws or constitution…
The 14th amendment was intended to be declaratory of existing law—applying it to newly freed slaves. I do not believe that it created a new class of citizenship.
Following Collins’ logic, even after the 14th, there are only 2 kinds of citizens—natural born and naturalized. Although the 14th didn’t use the term ‘natural born’, it nevertheless implied such—born on the soil, with no competing allegiance. Isn’t that “natural born” citizenship? If the child was born to a non-US citizen father, the child became a citizen when the father naturalized, or could elect to become a US citizen at majority—both of these scenarios conferred citizenship under naturalization.
Collins also rejected “…the doctrine that while [Wong] is a subject of the Chinese Emporer he is also a citizen of the United States and at majority had the right to elect between the two countries…” Collins asserted that “double allegiance…is not possible under our Constitution.”
Collins fully acknowledged that many born in the US to alien parents were considered citizens in practice—a practice inconsistently applied among states and even among government offices and departments.
The “doubts” expressed in Happersett, in my opinion, related to this inconsistent and incorrect application. The court didn’t need to address that issue, though, because Mrs. Happersett was not a part of the questioned group.
The only reason one would need to argue that the 14th did not address “natural born” citizenship would be because one posits that the 14th DOES grant citizenship to the children of aliens. I think that is entirely incorrect--remember the pesky little "subject to the jurisdiction" clause? It is not redundant to "born in the country".
If we were able to go back in time and ask Collins what he thought of the Obama situation—I think he would answer that not only is Obama not a “natural born” citizen, he was not born a citizen—unless his father naturalized or Obama himself did at his majority. And it would not matter that his mother was a citizen, because Collins explicitly rejected the granting of US citizenship at birth to a child with any competing citizenship under international law.
I do NOT believe that the 14th authorizes anchor baby citizenship. Anchor babies are in no way "natural born citizens." In the realm of severely needed immigration reform, that is a fight I will continue to engage...
I have your 6 Sallyven. Well said!
Nicely stated Sallyven & thanks for all the exhausting research you have done
IMO, dual citizenship exists because it would otherwise require legal action of some sort to establish the single, primary citizenship of persons who have competing allegiances. It doesn't exist in natural law, but in statutory laws which have been relaxed to allow multiple allegiances.
Following Collins’ logic, even after the 14th, there are only 2 kinds of citizens—natural born and naturalized. Although the 14th didn’t use the term ‘natural born’, it nevertheless implied such—born on the soil, with no competing allegiance. Isn’t that “natural born” citizenship?
Naturalization also means "no competing allegiance" but it is without regard to the place of birth. The difference between that and natural born is that one comes automatically by descent and the other comes by personal choice (or what they refer to as 'election,' such as when one reaches majority age).
The Wong Kim Ark decision clearly said that the 14th does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The 14th amendment is therefore, in essence, a naturalization act that takes place at birth, dependent on satisfying the subject clause through permanent residence and domicil. IOW, the parents may not have become citizens but have permanent domicil, thus those born of such person are collectively naturalized through the 14th amendment. Permanent residence substitutes for being a citizen, so it's a little bit like being natural-born, except that one has to determine whether the subject clause is satisfied. Such is not necessary for natural-born citizens.