"Subject to the Jurisdiction": You Can't Have It Both Ways

ConstitutionallySpeaking ^ | March 17, 2011 | ConstitutionallySpeaking

[patlin]

Since the SD legislature has refused to address the birthright citizernship issue, I decided to give it another go with Sen. Thune on a national level. As that "IS" the level of government in which it rightly should be addressed.

In my call to his office today I inquired:

Can the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” mean one thing for persons born and another for persons naturalized without it specifically separating the two in the initial language of the bill? If it does not, then that would mean that either there is no constitutional provision for anchor babies aka birthright citizenship for children born to parents in which one or more is an alien or that the oaths that immigrants must take renouncing any and all foreign allegiances is wholly unconstitutional and the US State Dept must immediately cease and desist in requiring it. If it is as some claim, that mere birth alone creates citizens, then it would also leave the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” completely unconstitutional and thereby creating complete chaos of the laws of nations not to mention the treaties signed by our government from its founding. The Expatriation Act of 1868, known as the sister act to the 14th Amendment, is still in force today as part of Title 8, while some parts of it were transferred under Foreign Affairs. This law is the basis for the renunciation oath that all immigrants must take and is the law which gives Congress the right & authority to rebuke a naturalized citizen’s US citizenship status & have that person deported for “bad behavior”. It is also the law that states that dual allegiance is not now nor ever has been part of our legal system. The Act states: “whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed” and then goes on to declare ” is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”.

From all the research into the congressional archives & past legislation that I have done from our founding to the present, and all the historical evidence that I have acquired, it is my conclusion that “subject to the jurisdiction” as it is written into the law can not suppose to repudiate itself nor are laws to be made that create redundancy. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995). I would like to hear how Sen. Thune, being a lawyer & writer/author of our laws can suppose a phrase mean two different things in the same law without specifically addressing them separately?

The 1995 Supreme Court case of Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 concluded that:

[562] The Act's structure and § 12's language reinforce this view. In addition, since the primary innovation of the Act was the creation of federal duties-for the most part registration and disclosure obligations-in connection with public offerings, it is reasonable to conclude that the liability provisions were designed primarily to provide remedies for violations of these obligations rather than to conclude that § 12(2) creates vast additional liabilities that are quite independent of them. Congress would have been specific had it intended "prospectus" to have a different meaning in § 12. Pp. 570-573 . . . [563] The Act's legislative history clearly indicates that Congress contemplated that § 12(2) would apply only to public offerings by an issuer or controlling shareholder, and nothing in that history suggests that Congress intended to create a formal prospectus required to comply with both §§ 10 and 12, and a second, less formal prospectus, to which only § 12 would be applicable. Pp. 578-584.

In other words, when a "term" or "phrase" of the law pertains to two different subject matter, unless otherwise stated in the statute by congress, the "term" or "phrase" shall be interpreted as to not repudiate itself.

The 14th Amendment is a prime example of this rule of law, i. e. birth & naturalization. According to Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the court in Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. and the rules pertaining to interpretation of laws, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction", unless otherwise stated specifically by Congress in subsequent legislation or in the definitions of the "terms" & "phrases" of that law that is written in the US code, shall have the exact same meaning for the one as it does for the other.

Furthermore, according to Justice Kennedy the corresponding legislation to the 14th, the Expatriation Act of 1868 being subsequent legislation to the 14th, shall also have no affect to redundancy or repudiation of the 14th & the 1866 Civil Rights Act which held the verbiage of the codified law until it was changed in 1940 when the 14th & the 1866 Acts were consolidated into one.

Constitutional & legislative interpretation was written centuries ago and after the revolution there was but a couple of law schools in the US. It wasn't until 1833 that Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, also founder of Harvard Law school, wrote his commentaries about constitutional interpretation that is still cited to this day. Chapter 5 titled "Rules of Interpretation", Section 188 & 194 of his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States states:

§ 188. IV. From the foregoing considerations we deduce the conclusion, that as a frame or fundamental law of government, (2.) The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the constitution; that which will give it efficacy and force, as a government, rather than that, which will impair its operations, and reduce it to a state of imbecility. Of course we do not mean, that the words for this purpose are to be strained beyond their common and natural sense; but keeping within that limit, the exposition is to have a fair and just latitude, so as on the one hand to avoid obvious mischief, and on the other hand to promote the public good.

§ 194. VIII. No construction of a given power is to be allowed, which plainly defeats, or impairs its avowed objects. If, therefore, the words are fairly susceptible of two interpretations, according to their common sense and use, the one of which would defeat one, or all of the objects, for which it was obviously given, and the other of which would preserve and promote all, the former interpretation ought to be rejected, and the latter be held the true interpretation. This rule results from the dictates of mere common sense; for every instrument ought to be so construed, ut magis valeat, quam pereat.

And this brings us to the power granted to Congress regarding citizenship. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Congress was afforded the power to naturalize citizens, but only nature could provide for the "natural born". Naturalized citizens are required by law to formally renounce, in front of a judge, any and all allegiances they may have to any foreign sovereign, potentate or nation & relinquish any and all titles of nobility to or of the same. They must declare that they personally & individually consent to hold but one citizenship, that of the United States. Therefore, the term "subject to the jurisdiction" means owing allegiance to one & ONLY ONE nation which is also currently noted in the historical archives of the Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization(1840-1950 when women, under law, were formally granted the right to keep a separate citizenship than that of their husband thereby adding to the destruction of the unified family under the laws of Nature & Nature's God).

Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

The one thing I have yet to find is a US law which specifically repealed the law of nations doctrine of transference of citizenship to children born in wedlock in a country where the father ia a foreigner. All the citizenship treaties between the US and foreign nations were written based on the laws of nature & nations. I have yet to find in the international laws reference that a child who is born in wedlock to parents who are citizens of different nations, the nationality of both parents transfers to the child. As far as I can find, the doctrine described above from the Library of Congress pertaining to children born in these cases, is still on the books but hidden rather good in the extensive codes that are hard to manuever through. Common sense tells us that at some point these children will have to make a formal declaration as to which country they wanted to be a citizen of as an adult and it would require a formal renunciation of one of those citizenships they supposedly acquired. In my mind & from my understanding of the law, these children are really citizens of neither. They merely partake in the rights of their parents, the benefits & rights of which ever parent best suits their needs on any given particular day without having to show a complete and absolute allegiance to either nation.

The naturalization laws from 1790- reflected what was already required of those born in the United States from July 4, 1776, that they be born to parents who did not owe any allegiance to any foreign nation. Rep Bingham, framer of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment & the subsequent legislation of the 1868 Expatriation Act:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 March 9, 1866 )

And later after the passing of the 14th & the Expatriation Act we find Bingham once again on the floor of Congress in 1872 debating legislation pertaining to a US citizen jailed in Cuba:

As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is no room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.

Mr Speaker, the next point in the issue is as to expatriation. Expatriation is one of the most imprescribtible right of men. To assert it the American government waged war against Great Britain, in what is known in our history as the "second war for independence," for three years. The right of expatriation in one of the fundamental principles of American government. (Cong. Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 2nd Session page 2791)

The "second war for independence" that Rep Bingham is referring to is of course the "War of 1812" in which Great Britain was not acknowledging the rights of former British subjects who had become naturalized in the United States as well as children born on american soil to former founding British subjects who had adhered to the American revolution. The British government was clinging bitterly to their feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance,, once a Brit always a Brit that the founders had cast off to adopt the laws of Nature & Nature's God.

However, previous to Bingham's statements on the floor of Congress from 1862 to 1872 which was never disputed, we find an even earlier reference that was also not disputed regarding allegiance & citizenship and how children of foreigners born on US soil gain citizenship:

28th Congress, 2nd Session page 129

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts...provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States:

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children...who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United State (April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155)

There is no ambiguity here. "Subject to the jurisdiction" means owing allegiance to ONLY the Unites States, either at birth or by naturalization. Children of foreigners, whether born here or abroad do not gain citizenship as a child until the parents themselves become citizens through the tacit consent of their parents. Society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation. It is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Law of Nations Bk1, Chap 19, Sec. 212)

Native refers to soil, Natural refers to blood. To this there is no dispute in the laws of God, of Nature & of man. (Webster's Dictionary for the US Constitution (1828) Vol 1 and Vol 2 per request by the US Congress). And although according to Title 8 of the US Code, natives may be Nationals, not all Nationals are US citizens and they certainly are not natural born citizens because under the color of the law, one can not give to a minor child through tacit consent that which they themselves do not possess.

[patlin]

My summation of the 14th Amendment

[RebelTex]

Good article.
Very sound argument and well reasoned.

Thanks for posting.

[patlin]

Thanks and thanks for overlooking my typos that I didn’t catch the 1st 3 times proof reading it before publishing.

[LucyT]

"Subject to the Jurisdiction": You Can't Have It Both Ways

Summation of the 14th Amendment

. . . . See article.

Thanks, patlin.

[llandres]

So, did you get a response from Thune of any kind?

[Vendome]

Nicely done.

[patlin]

So, did you get a response from Thune of any kind?

Not until Monday. I will be out most of the day tomorrow.

[llandres]

Thanks for the quick answer. I hope you’ll share the outcome with us next week. I like Thune, and at least some of these guys MUST consider the critical Constitutional guidelines you so painstakingly well stated. Birther issue aside, this is a quite logical and valid argument that all Presidential candidates should be required to provide proof of legal eligibility - and it needs response from our legislators.

[STE=Q]

Great article.

Thanks!

STE=Q

[tutstar]

Bfl

[phockthis]

thanks...

[bcsco]

This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.

Eight Out of Ten Illegal Aliens Apprehended in 2010 Never Prosecuted, Says Border Congressman

Financial Aid for Illegal Students OK’d

Immigrant policy worsens deficit (Connecticut)

Ariz. Senate rejects illegal immigration bills (GOP Caves To Chamber of Commerce Again)

Eight Out of Ten Illegal Aliens Apprehended in 2010 Never Prosecuted, Says Border Congressman

ATF let hundreds of U.S. weapons fall into hands of suspected Mexican gunrunners

Alleged Supporter of Terrorist Group Indicted [Re Hizballah]

[cvq3842]

My flippant solution is just to draft all children of illegal immigrants. Maybe then they will want to give up their “citizenship.”

But today it’s just looked at as a ticket to government freebies.

Citizenship has responsibilities as well.

[rolling_stone]

Our own federal statue indirectly recognizes jurisdiction over non-immigrant aliens only applies while in this country and not when they are out of it. They are sojourners not completely subject to US jurisdiction.(pretty interesting that the US can make it illegal for US citizen/permanent resident to do somnething that may be legal in a foreign country.)

See

18 U.S.C. § 2423 (2008)

§ 2423. TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS

(a) Transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

(b) Travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(c) Engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places. Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(d) Ancillary offenses. Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arranges, induces, procures, or facilitates the travel of a person knowing that such a person is traveling in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(e) Attempt and conspiracy. Whoever attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of that subsection.

(f) Definition. As used in this section, the term “illicit sexual conduct” means (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246 [18 USCS § 2246]) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A [18 USCS §§ 2241 et seq.] if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591 [18 USCS § 1591]) with a person under 18 years of age.

(g) Defense. In a prosecution under this section based on illicit sexual conduct as defined in subsection (f)(2), it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years.

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[raybbr]

Very nice, if mind boggling.

Thank you for this.

[frog in a pot]

Wish you better luck than we had here in Kansas.

This is what I recently received from the Elections Committee Chair after I detailed the basis on which the proposed presidential eligibility bill his committe was considering did not conform to the U.S. Constitution:

Thank you so much for reaching out and letting us know your concerns as it relates to HB 2224. The bill has been introduced, and assign to our committee, but do to the lateness of the bills introduction, and limited time, we did not have a hearing or work the bill. The bill will still be in committee when we resume our work next January. At that point we may have hearings, and you are more than welcome to come and readdress your concerns to the committee then.