[continued from previous message]   
      
   >do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the   
   >United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else.   
   >That is what it means.”   
   >   
   >Maryland’s Reverdy Johnson, the only Democrat in this   
   >Reconstruction-era debate, gave Trumbull bipartisan   
   >support. “Now all this amendment provides is, that all   
   >persons born in the United States and not subject to   
   >any foreign Power … shall be considered as citizens of   
   >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)