Replies

You said ... Surely, you jest. History IS clear. This statement of 1820 PRECEDED the 14th Amendment.

Sir, that was my point. Let's try again and please read more slowly this time. I said ... "Were it not for the 14th Amendment and the subsequent support of the Supreme Court, the children of parents owing their allegiance to foreign governments, even those born on U.S. soil, would not have even been considered "citizens" but through naturalization --- and "natural born citizens" was out of the question." Bingham's and Smyth's statements support that assertion. It's not a misnomer. It is historic fact.

You said ... "The 14th Amendment reset our laws on birthright citizenship"

Alright then, in the framework of U.S. history, let us see what impact was made by this "reset". Let's consult Jacob M. Howard. After all, he was the Senator from Michigan that introduced the 14th Amendment to the United States Senate in 1866. He would know better than I, and far better than you presume to know, what the intent of the 14th Amendment held. Senator Howard spoke ...

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

Well, that's pretty clear, isn't it. Note his use of the interjection "of course" as if to say "this is obvious". And so it was, in the historical context. Mr. Howard contended the law of the land before and after the introduction of the 14th Amendment denied birthright citizenship from persons born on U.S. soil who are foreigners or aliens. So ... it is possible to be "born in the United States" and yet still be a "foreigner" or "alien" (and, by reference to the other historic figures I've mentioned, we accept the allegiance of the parents defines this distinction). It is possible a newborn on U.S. soil could be a non-citizen in Mr. Howard's belief -- a belief he maintained was the accepted law of the land already.

It's not much of a "reset" after all. It simply officiated the commonly accepted position of the day so as to remove "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens".

The part you needed to make bold is that “Were it not for the 14th Amendment” because that is the key point.

At least you are being logically consistent here, realizing (unlike some others pushing this theory) that you need to argue against the common view of ‘birthright citizenship’ as extending to everyone born in the USA. (Yes, there are exceptions but they are narrow - diplomats and invading armies - and according to latest SCOTUS rulings dont even exclude children of illegal aliens.)

However the case of Obama - born in Honolulu to a foreign father and US citizen mother - is a case where Obama could live his entire life in the US yet not be a citizen. As long as we are doing the original intent thing, consider that the original intent of the 14th was to end such possibilities. He has a stronger case for sure than Wong Kim Ark did in 1898 (who was born in San Fransisco to Chinese national parents) and SCOTUS gave Wong Kim Ark birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Howard quote is a part of the story, but only a part. His quote doesnt contradicate Wong Kim Ark directly.

I have gone through this a few times with others recently, and my bottom line point remains: To pursue this legal theory, you end having to argue that SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark was wrong. maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, but it becomes a theoretic exercise to propose that a SCOTUS ruling that has held for over 100 years be overturned.

Under *current law* as *currently* interpreted by the Federal courts, Barack Obama if born in the USA is a US citizen at birth. (Actually he is a US citizen in any case under the 1986 INA 301 grandfathering in cases of people born with one parent a US citizen.)