1868 Fourteenth Amendment Freedom from Slavery = Singular U.S. Citizenship

1868 Fourteenth Amendment Freedom from Slavery

= Singular U.S. Citizenship for the Freed Negroes

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on March 7, 2015 at 10:14 AM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html

<<>>

Amendment XIV Section 1

[Part A:] 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.

[Part B:] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

[Part C:] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In Mario's first four sentences of his first paragraph in part 2 of his point-counterpoint on Cafe Con Leche Republicans with Kevin/Slartibartfast/PhD Mathematician, which he posted on his blog on March 6, 2015 at 1:35 PM, he wrote about "some authorities." My comment is about them:

"You contend that how Minor defined a natural born citizen was not meant by it to exclude children born in the United States to alien parents from being natural born citizens.

"You continuously tell us that Minor said there were “doubts” as to other children who could also be natural born citizens.

"You are mistaken.

"While the Court might not have definitely excluded those other children from being citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) found, it did exclude them from being natural born citizens under the common law.

"We know that it excluded them because the Court explained that at common law children who were not born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of their birth were “aliens or foreigners” who needed to be naturalized under Acts of Congress or treaties.

"What Minor did add was that “some authorities” had maintained that children born in the jurisdiction to alien parents were also “citizens.” Evidently, the Court was referring to the question of whether those children were “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which would have added to Congressional Acts another means by which children who were not natural born citizens could become citizens from the moment of birth."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What Mario wrote about the Minor v. Happersett decision, which was written in 1875, only 7 years after Amendment 14 was ratified in 1868, revealed two things about Amendment 14 that I noticed with greater clarity yesterday after analyzing the first sentence for the umteenth time:

"While the Court might not have definitely excluded those other children from being citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment,

[...snip...]

What Minor did add was that “some authorities” had maintained that children born in the jurisdiction to alien parents were also “citizens.”

It looks like there are three possible citizenships meant by "all persons born or naturalized...are citizens..." in Amendment 14: (1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for "born...citizens;" (2) ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for "born...citizens;" (3) BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship for "born...citizens."

Some 2008-2015 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers are accurate in asserting that the 1868 original intent for the word "born" in "all persons born...are citizens..." in Amendment 14 was not clear until 30 years later in 1898 with the holding of the Supreme Court in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision. They assert that the Court's holding that Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was a "citizen" means that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment language of the framers can be construed as implying that "born" means two things: (1) Dual U.S./foreign citizenship at birth on U.S. soil to either one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other at the time of their child's birth; (2) Dual U.S./foreign citizenship at birth on U.S. soil to either two OR one OR zero non-U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other.

Although the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther dilemma is that ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship is possible with one OR zero U.S. citizen parents and with two OR one OR zero non-U.S. citizen parents, the new meaning neo-birthers simply assert with no historical foundation, either by amendment, statute or judicial decision, that dual U.S./foreign citizenship fulfills the original intent of "natural born Citizen" in Article 2. They assert it simply because the child is "natural born" on U.S. soil and Amendment 14 explicitly states that they are "citizens" of the United States.

That is how easy it is to be a "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther—'cause dual U.S./foreign citizenship is as good as singular U.S. citizenship to be eligible to be POTUS, 'cause the neo-birthers say so, period, 'cause, well, 'cause BHObama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent.

However, the neo-birther dilemma REALLY means that since the Supreme Court held in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision that a Chinese child born on U.S. soil to two married Chinese parents who were both not naturalized as U.S. citizens before their child was born, the common sense conclusion is that ALL children born on U.S. soil to two OR one OR zero married or not married parents who are NOT U.S. citizens, and ALL children born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents, citizens either by birth or by naturalization, ALL of their children are "citizens" with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, and NONE are an Article 2 "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship. The "nbC" new meaning neo-birther dilemma means that it was NOT the original intent of the framers of the 1868 Amendment 14 for BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship OR ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

Since the 1898 U.S. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court "citizen" decision, the constitutional distinction is between a 1787 Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship AND an 1868 Amendment 14 Section 1 "citizen" with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, NOT singular U.S. citizenship. The new meaning neo-birther dilemma is that being born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship means that Wong Kim Ark, who had zero U.S. citizen parents, was not eligible to be POTUS in 1898 America, and that Wong Kim Ark common sense conclusion about eligibility means that "All persons born ..." on U.S. soil with zero U.S. citizen parents have dual U.S. citizenship and are still NOT eligible to be POTUS in 2015 America. That common sense conclusion ALSO applies to persons born on U.S. soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent. Persons born on U.S. soil to either one OR zero U.S. citizen parents are NOT eligible to be POTUS.

Dual U.S./foreign citizenship does NOT fulfill the 1787 "natural born Citizen" requirement of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers also assert that the INA: ACT 301 language means that birth on foreign soil to either one OR two U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other at the time of their child's birth, fulfills the 1787 "natural born Citizen" requirement simply because the child was "natural born" to either one OR two U.S. citizen parents.

The language of INA: ACT 301 is not suggesting that "at birth" a child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born Citizen" by birth alone, also expressed as "by birth." Also, the INA: ACT 301 language is not suggesting that "at birth" a child born on foreign soil to one OR two U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born Citizen" by birth alone, also expressed as "by birth."

Maybe the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers can cite the source that says that a 1787-2015 Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen," aka a "citizen" "by birth," is the same thing as an 1868-2015 Amendment 14, Section 1 "citizen" "at birth."

Also, maybe the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers can cite the source that says that a 1952-2015 INA: ACT 301 - Nationals and Citizens of the United states at Birth, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401], specifically clauses (a) and (g), is the same thing as an A2S1C5 "citizen" "by birth," a "natural born Citizen."

Notice the explicit language in the INA:ACT 301 about "at birth" the child is a "citizen." The language is not suggesting that "at birth" the child is a "natural born Citizen." The "Citizens...at Birth" are INA: ACT 301 "citizens" "at birth" but not Article 2 "natural born Citizens" "by birth" since the "natural born Citizen" does not need Fourteenth Amendment "at birth" positive law or INA: ACT 301 "at birth" positive law to be "by birth" a natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen."

To put it another way in two parts:

(1) the Amendment 14 language, as interpreted by the Supreme Court since 1898 until today in 2015, is NOT suggesting that "at birth" a child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born Citizen" "by birth."

(2a) the INA: ACT 301 language is NOT suggesting that a child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, OR (2b) born on foreign soil to one OR two U.S. citizen parents is "at birth" a "natural born Citizen" "by birth."

The first sentence of Amendment 14 Section 1 has the explicit language, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction...are citizens... ."

The question is, what did "born" mean in 1868? Did "born" mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the Amendment 14 free negroes; OR did "born" mean ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the Amendment 14 free negroes; OR did "born" mean BOTH both 1868 singular/dual AND ONLY 1898 dual?

THAT is the essence of the "born" debate about the original intent of "born" in Amendment 14.

Before the 1898 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, "born" did NOT mean dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the negroes while they were still slaves, and it definitely did NOT mean dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the free negroes AFTER slavery was abolished since they were now free citizens of ONLY one nation. So, the word "born" in 1868 meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the negroes freed from slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment, the 1865 abolition of slavery amendment; which was followed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the 1868 "born...citizens" amendment; followed by the Fifteenth Amendment, the 1870 racial suffrage amendment, which meant that the national right to vote was for male negroes. The national right for all females of all races to vote came in 1920 with the Nineteenth Amendment, the women's suffrage amendment.

However, since the Supreme Court decision of 1898, "born" in the Fourteenth Amendment can ONLY mean born a citizen with ONLY dual U.S. foreign citizenship "at birth" AND not eligible to be POTUS, and "born" in the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT mean ALSO Article 2 ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" AND eligible to be POTUS. This "at birth" dual U.S./foreign citizenship status in the Amendment 14 language has been confirmed by the Supreme Court since 1898 when the Court held in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision that the Chinese child Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to a Chinese married couple who were both not U.S. citizens by birth or by naturalization, their child Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen "at birth," meaning born with dual U.S./Chinese citizenship; U.S. citizenship "at birth" on U.S. soil AND Chinese citizenship "by birth" to alien parents. The child Wong Kim Ark was NOT a "natural born Citizen" "by birth" to alien parents AND born with singular U.S. citizenship. Wong Kim Ark was a "born citizen" "at birth" according to the 1898 Supreme Court decision, but he was born with dual U.S./Chinese citizenship and NOT eligible to be POTUS because he was born to two alien parents who did not naturalize before he was born. They could NOT pass on U.S. citizenship because they did NOT have U.S. citizenship to pass on.

Wong Kim Ark (and Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley) derived U.S. citizen status "by fiat" and not "by birth." Wong Kim Ark was naturalized by the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court "by fiat"; natural law "by birth" had nothing to do with his positive law "citizen" status that, to be eligible to be POTUS, could only be inherited from two U.S. citizen married parents. Also, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA: ACT 301) offers U.S. citizen status "at birth" (aka "by fiat") and NOT "by birth" to children born on foreign soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent (Sen. Ted Cruz). 

That is the simple common sense constitutionl "by fiat" reason that a child born on foreign soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent and a child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is NOT an Article II "natural born Citizen" and so NOT "...eligible to the Office of President."

So, according to the Fourteenth Amendment and how the 1898 Supreme Court interpreted the amendment and "born" in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, it looks like the essence of the "natural born Citizen" proper subset issue is the distinction between two articles of the Constitution: the Article 2 singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" and the Amendment 14 dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at birth."

Extraneous but relevant, is the naturalized "citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship "by" oath "after" birth.

Not an issue today is the original intent in 1868 of "All persons born ... are citizens ..." in the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning, for the new free negroes, "born" with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

However, the 1868 original intent could be a BIG issue today in 2015 America if, and this a BIG "IF," the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court holding that "All persons born ... subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction are citizens ..." means dual U.S./foreign citizenship and that implicit meaning of dual U.S./foreign citizenship was overturned by a future Court, or if the 1898 Supreme Court decision with the implicature of dual U.S./foreign citizenship were repealed with a "several states" Article V amendment, that would mean the Fourteenth Amendment would mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship again as was intended in 1868, NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship as implied since 1898, and definitely NOT BOTH 1868 Fourteenth Amendment singular U.S. citizenship AND 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court implication of dual U.S./foreign citizenship. If Amendment 14 Section 1 and "All persons born ... subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction are citizens ..." were defined and codified as meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship again as in 1868, that would mean BOTH words, "born" AND "naturalized" in "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ...," would BOTH be expressing ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as was originally intended in 1868, instead of "born" having the 1898 Supreme Court meaning of ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship and "naturalized" having the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

To be naturalized means to make the oath to renounce foreign citizenship and titles, so the new citizen "by oath" has ONLY singular U.S. citizenship. That means that with BOTH the 1868 singular U.S. citizenship meaning of "born" AND the 1898 dual U.S./foreign citizenship meaning of "born," and also the 1868 singular U.S. citizenship meaning of "naturalized," the word "born" in "All persons born ... are citizens ..." in the Fourteenth Amendment means NOT eligible to be POTUS, and the word "naturalized" in "All persons ... naturalized ... are citizens ..." in Amendment 14 ALSO means NOT eligible to be POTUS.

Anchor baby citizenship was definitely NOT the original intent of the original framers of the Thirteenth Amendment and the word "born" in the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. If "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers insist that anchor baby citizenship with dual U.S./foreign citizenship WAS the original intent of the original framers of Fourteenth Amendment, they need to cite the sources for the assertion that the framer's original intent was to include dual U.S./foreign citizenship for alien parents who "break and enter" to "plop and drop" their dual U.S. citizenship "anchor babies."

An Article V amendment should be written to codify the word "born" in "All persons born...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction..." with language to immediately stop "anchor baby citizenship" for children born on U.S. soil to alien parents who have not naturalized as U.S. citizens.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2014/12/time-to-change-conversation.html )