[continued from previous message]   
      
   the United States.” Johnson emphasized that the   
   jurisdiction requirement meant the same as the phrase   
   “not subject to any foreign Power” in the Civil Rights   
   Act of 1866, passed by the same Congress that ratified   
   the 14th Amendment. The import of the jurisdiction   
   requirement, affirmed by its drafters’ expressed   
   intent, is that after dealing with the special case of   
   freedmen the Citizenship Clause confers birthright   
   citizenship only on citizens’ children.   
      
   The Supreme Court honored the Citizenship Clause for 30   
   years, holding that the jurisdiction requirement’s   
   distinction between those who do and do not owe   
   complete allegiance to the United States is a critical   
   test of citizenship. In The Slaughter House Cases   
   (1873), the Court held that the jurisdiction   
   requirement was “intended to exclude from [the   
   Citizenship Clause’s] operation children of ministers,   
   consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states   
   born within the United States.” In Elk v. Wilkins   
   (1884), the Court denied citizenship to John Elk, an   
   Indian, because he did not owe complete allegiance to   
   the United States. The jurisdiction requirement “put it   
   beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and   
   whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in   
   the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien   
   power, should be citizens of the United States.”   
   Justice Gray continued, “The evident meaning of [the   
   jurisdiction requirement] is, not merely subject in   
   some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the   
   United States, but completely subject to their   
   political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and   
   immediate allegiance.” It is impossible to square this   
   interpretation with conferring citizenship on Hamdi or   
   on any illegal alien’s child. And it is very hard to   
   reconcile it with granting birthright citizenship to   
   the children of legally resident aliens, who retain   
   allegiance to their ancestral homelands.   
      
   Unfortunately, the Court undermined the jurisdiction   
   requirement in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)   
   when Justice Gray, who had it right in Elk, concocted   
   the theory that an alien in this country somehow gives   
   his undivided allegiance to the United States and   
   renounces all allegiance to his homeland for the   
   duration of his residence. Gray’s Wong interpretation   
   finds no support in the Citizenship Clause, the Senate   
   debate, or the Court’s own precedents. It was a   
   political expedient to avoid acknowledging that   
   California-born children of Chinese parents legally in   
   the United States, of whom Wong was one, were not   
   automatically American citizens. The Court instead   
   invented a right to citizenship for U.S.-born children   
   of legally resident aliens. Not for the last time, the   
   Supreme Court refused to apply the Constitution as   
   written. Since Wong, the Court has accepted the case’s   
   reasoning without examining it, exacerbating drive-by   
   citizenship. With Hamdi the Court has ducked the issue   
   again.   
      
   Fortunately, we need not await the Supreme Court’s   
   pleasure to enforce the whole Citizenship Clause and   
   end drive-by citizenship. Section 5 of the 14th   
   Amendment gives enforcement power to the Congress.   
   Three bills exercising this authority are pending in   
   the House. The best is H.J. Res. 42, sponsored by Rep.   
   Ron Paul of Texas, to amend the Constitution to deny   
   citizenship to individuals born in the United States to   
   parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor persons who   
   owe permanent allegiance to America. Although an   
   amendment is not necessary, Paul’s resolution is   
   faithful to the Citizenship Clause.   
      
   Legislation enforcing the Citizenship Clause must also   
   restore the traditional American rejection of dual   
   citizenship. It should follow these principles:   
      
         • Children of U.S. citizens are citizens, wherever born.   
      
         • Children of an American and a foreign parent are   
           treated as citizens until their 18th birthday.   
           Then they must choose one citizenship; no dual   
           nationality.   
      
         • U.S.-born children of legally resident aliens are   
           not citizens at birth. If their parents   
           naturalize while they are minor dependents they   
           may naturalize with them (assuming no criminal   
           record). Otherwise they pursue naturalization, if   
           at all, as do other immigrants.   
      
         • U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are not   
           citizens, period.   
      
   Mass immigration is transforming America, and Americans   
   have very little say in it. We must regain control over   
   who shares the privileges and duties of American   
   citizenship. Yaser Esam Hamdi’s only chosen involvement   
   with this nation has been fighting with the Taliban   
   against our troops. An America that accepts him as a   
   fellow-citizen has no respect for its own   
   citizenship—and an America that gives citizenship away   
   to illegal alien and birth-tourist babies drains its   
   greatest privilege, U.S. citizenship, of value.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)