Posted on 04/09/2007 10:45:31 AM PDT by AZRepublican
Q: When did the United States Adopt Jus Solis?
Answer: United States never did adopt it, and instead, abandoned it.
After the Revolutionary War the first thing the colonies threw out was England’s much hated “perpetual allegiance.” To the colonists, perpetual allegiance was much like “perpetual bondage,” and was considered both a dirty phrase and offensive. To say America freely adopted common law rule of jus soli would be like suggesting America adopted Nazism after WWII.
Under jus soli, there was no personal choice. Under old English common law, foreigners were not required to owe any allegiance to the nation in advance, only birth upon British soil without condition. Under common law, dual allegiance could easily be forced upon a child, something Americans greatly despised and guarded against.
Founder Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the “consent” of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”
Theodore Roosevelt called dual allegiance a “self-evident absurdity.” Adams said a “man who confesses to several allegiances is not a man anyone could completely trust.” There was to be no dual allegiance in the United States, and the framers went to pains to make sure the evil could never exist.
After the current Constitution was adopted, America devised its own rules governing citizenship that resembled nothing like jus soli under common law that had been abandoned. Instead of forcing allegiance upon a person, it was required that they consent in advance and renounce all allegiance they owed to their country of birth.
Under American law it was required for foreigners three years before admission to first record their intent to become citizens with a local court. Furthermore, foreigners were required to take a oath that it is their intention to become a citizen of the United States, and that they renounce forever any allegiance and fidelity to another country. Upon this, children born to him/her would be considered born within the allegiance of the United States, and thus, a citizen of the United States even though the father had not yet been awarded citizenship.
Under common law, none of the above was required, and so, proves without a doubt the United States never adopted jus soli. Anyone who says different is a very troubled person.
The 39th Congress adopted the same allegiance requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
What did “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? It was defined by Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary: “Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
The primary author of the Fourteenths citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard, said “subject to the jurisdiction” means the “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
The construction applied to the citizenship clause by its framers dramatically departs from the rule of jus soli, and thus, differs in operation. Under Howard’s construction the clause could had well read: “All persons born to citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
Next time someone says America adopted the rule of jus soli, or adopted England’s common law of birthright, laugh at ‘em. Finally, I will finish with some words of wisdom from TR.
From the melting pot of life in this free land all men and woman of all nations who come hither emerge as Americans and nothing else. They must have renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came. And it is a binding duty on every citizen of this country in every important crisis to act solidly with all his fellow Americans, having regard only to the honor and interest of America, treating every other nation purely on its conduct in that crisis, without reference to his ancestral predilections or antipathies. If he does not act, he is false to the teachings and lives of Washington and Lincoln; he is not entitled to any part or lot in our country and he should be sent out of it. (Theodore Roosevelt, "The Children of the Crucible" New York, Sept. 9, 1917)
>Your blogger has one opinion and the Supreme Court has another
If you read it carefully, this blogger isn’t stating his opinion, but repeating what the framers of the 14th amendment said it meant. If you read what the blogger said, you will find the supreme court very clearly said they were going to ignore the facts because they believed the fact would have lead to undesirable (in their opinion) consequences.
It strains the bounds of credulity that Jus Soli was abolished under the 14th Amendment, which nowhere mentions the doctrine (if they wished to abolish it they would have stated the fact in the amendment, which they did not), a generation later every lawyer in the country including the Supreme Court would have forgotten the abolition, and that only five generations later would somebody remember, "Oh, yeah, we did away with that."
I would also point out how strong prejudice against Chinese was in the Nineteenth Century. There is no reason the Supreme Court would have ruled in his favor, except that they thought the law mandated that they must.
Just because I wish it had been abolished doesn’t mean it was.
>No, the author is stating his opinion.
No, he is stating the opinion of the framers.
>The Supreme Court has stated its opinion. Under our system the Supreme Court wins.
No, supreme court does not always win when its opinion is supported by nothing but made up facts. How many times have the court ruled one way and then ruled a different way?
Just because the court says a wrong is a right, doesn’t make the wrong a right.
>I would also point out how strong prejudice against Chinese was in the Nineteenth Century.
The court in Wong said they were not concerned with the chinese, but only concerned with the potential of denying “citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German.”
The entire Wong ruling was a grave miscarriage of justice and a black eye to the judiciary. To insist on defending this court is like defending Hitler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.